Statutory Age Limits Do Not Bar Continuation of ART Procedures for Pre-existing Cryopreserved Embryos

The Petitioners, a married couple, approached Respondent No. 5 (Hospital) for Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services following the death of their son.

At the commencement of treatment, both petitioners were within the age limits prescribed by Section 21(g) of the ART Act, 2021.

On March 7, 2026, six embryos were created and cryopreserved; one transfer was attempted but failed.

The Petitioners sought to utilize the remaining five embryos for a Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET) procedure.

However, the Hospital and the Gynaecologist (Respondent No. 6) refused to proceed because Petitioner No. 1 (the wife) had since crossed the upper age limit of 50 years.

As of the hearing, the wife was 50 years and 2 months old, and the husband was 54 years old.

1. Whether the age restriction prescribed under Section 21(g) of the ART Act, 2021, operates to prevent the continuation (utilization of existing embryos) of a medical process that was lawfully initiated when the parties were within the statutory age limits.

Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, which limits ART services to women between ages 21–50 and men between 21–55.

Definition of a "commissioning couple" under Section 2(e).

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, establishing that reproductive autonomy and decisional privacy are fundamental rights.

The purposive interpretation of the ART Act found in Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Shyamoli Saha v. State of West Bengal, which held that statutory age limits should not be applied mechanically to defeat ongoing reproductive processes involving already created embryos.

The Court reasoned that a distinction must be drawn between the initiation of a fresh IVF cycle and the continuation of an ongoing procedure using pre-existing cryopreserved embryos.

The Court noted that the Petitioners undisputedly fulfilled the eligibility criteria when the embryos were retrieved and created.

The Court observed that Section 21(g) prescribes age eligibility for a "woman" and a "man" individually, and the legislature consciously avoided a composite "combined age" for a commissioning couple.

By analyzing Sections 21(a), 2(e), and 21(h), the Court found that the statutory requirements focus on the status of the couple at the time they "approach" the clinic and "avail" the technology.

Applying a purposive and constitutional interpretation, the Court held that since the embryos are an integral facet of the petitioners' reproductive autonomy under Article 21, and since no specific medical risk beyond general policy concerns was presented, the law should not be used as an insurmountable barrier to conclude a process lawfully begun.

The High Court allowed the petition and directed that the Petitioners be permitted to undergo the Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET) of their remaining five cryopreserved embryos at Respondent No. 5 hospital, adhering to all medical safeguards.

No order as to costs was made.