The right to reproductive autonomy permits age-limit relaxations under the ART Act in exceptional circumstances.

The petitioners, a legally wedded couple aged 49 (wife) and 55 (husband), lost their only child in 2022

After recovering from the resulting psychological trauma, they sought In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) treatment at Indira IVF Centre

While medically fit, the clinic denied treatment because the husband turned 55 in February 2026, marginally crossing the upper age limit of 55 prescribed under Section 21(g)(ii) of the ART Act

The petitioners challenged this denial as a violation of their reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution

1. Whether the petitioners are eligible to avail Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services despite the husband exceeding the statutory age limit under Section 21(g) of the ACT of 2021

2. Whether the statutory age bar should be applied rigidly or read in a purposive, individual-centric manner in light of the fundamental right to reproductive autonomy

Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, which sets age limits of 21–50 for women and 21–55 for men

Section 2(1)(n), which defines "patients" as individuals or couples

Supreme Court precedents of Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, establishing reproductive choice and decisional autonomy as integral to the right to life under Article 21

Individual-centric nature of ART eligibility as referenced in Vijaya Kumari S. v. Union of India and Sajitha Abdul Nazar v. Union of India

The Court reasoned that the ART Act does not prescribe a "combined age" for couples, unlike adoption laws, but rather sets gender-specific limits, suggesting an individual-centric approach

It held that a woman’s eligibility to undergo the procedure (if within the 21–50 range) should operate independently of her husband’s age, provided he consents

Applying the principle of "purposive interpretation," the Court found that the petitioners’ delay was bona fide due to the tragic loss of their child

It determined that a "mechanical application" of Section 21(g) would result in "hostile discrimination" and violate the constitutional right to reproductive autonomy when the wife remains within the legal age limit and both are medically fit

The writ petition was allowed, directing respondent clinics to proceed with IVF treatment as an "exceptional case"

The Court ordered that the treatment continue even if the wife crosses age 50 during the cycle and protected the IVF clinic from any penal or regulatory action for complying with the judicial order