Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a woman aged above 50, sought Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services using donor gametes under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. Her representation to the 7th respondent, the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, was rejected by an order dated 12 July 2024 citing Section 21(g) of the ART Act, which limits ART services to women between 21 and 50 years. Aggrieved, she filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, seeking to quash the rejection and a direction to permit continuation of IVF treatment. The core legal issue was whether a woman above 50 years has a legal right to demand ART services under the ART Act. The petitioner argued that the definition of 'Woman' under Section 2(u) did not prescribe an upper age limit, and that Section 21(g) only imposed a duty on clinics without barring older women. She also pointed to the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, where the term 'intending woman' includes an upper age limit, suggesting its deliberate omission in the ART Act. The respondents relied on the plain language of Section 21(g). The court, after examining the provisions, held that Section 21(g) creates a legal right only for women within the age bracket of 21 to 50 years, and those outside cannot claim such services as an enforceable right. It reasoned that the specific provision in Section 21(g) overrides the general definition in Section 2(u), and the objects and reasons of the Act explicitly state that ART services are to be available to women below 50 years. The court also considered the rationality of the age limit, balancing reproductive autonomy under Article 21 with the corresponding duty to raise the child until majority and the higher risks to the mother beyond 50. It concluded that the age limit was not irrational, and since the petitioner had not challenged the vires of Section 21(g), the rejection order was lawful. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Headnote
A) Statutory Interpretation - Definition vs. Specific Provision - Interpretation of 'Woman' - Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, Sections 2(u), 21(g) - The definition of 'Woman' in Section 2(u) prescribes only a lower age limit of 21 years and no upper age limit, but Section 21(g) imposes a duty on ART clinics to apply services to a woman between 21 and 50 years, thereby restricting the legal right to ART to that age bracket. The specific provision overrides the general definition, and the legislature consciously omitted the upper age limit in the definition to avoid confusion due to different age limits for donors (35 years under Section 27(2)(b)) and recipients. Held that the petitioner, being above 50, had no legal right to enforce ART services. (Paras 4, 7-10) B) Reproductive Rights - ART Services - Legal Right to ART - Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, Section 21(g) - Section 21(g) creates a legal right for women below 50 to demand ART services as a matter of right; a woman above 50 may desire such services but cannot claim them as an enforceable legal right. The court rejected the argument that Section 21(g) only imposes an obligation on clinics without barring older women, holding that the duty implies a corresponding right only for those within the age bracket. (Paras 4-5, 8) C) Reproductive Autonomy - Balancing Duty to Child - Rationality of Upper Age Limit - Constitution of India, Article 21; Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, Section 21(g) - While reproductive autonomy is part of the right to life under Article 21, it must be balanced with the duty to bring up the child until majority. The court observed that the age limit of 50 years is rational, considering the higher risks to mother and child, the need to support the child for at least 18 years, and the typical retirement age of 60, and the petitioner did not challenge the vires of Section 21(g). (Paras 11-13) D) Statutory Interpretation - Legislative Intent - Objects and Reasons as Aid - Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, Clause 5(d) of Statement of Objects and Reasons - The objects and reasons of the Act expressly state that ART services shall be available to a woman below 50 years, confirming that the legislative intent is to prohibit ART for women above that age. This supports the interpretation of Section 21(g) as imposing an upper age limit. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a woman above 50 years of age has a legal right to demand Assisted Reproductive Technology services under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, in light of the age limit prescribed under Section 21(g) read with the definition of 'Woman' under Section 2(u).
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. The court upheld the 7th respondent's order rejecting petitioner's request for ART services on the ground of age exceeding 50 years as per Section 21(g) of the ART Act.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 21(g) of ART Act creates legal right only for women within age bracket of 21 to 50 years
- Definition of 'Woman' under Section 2(u) must be read subject to Section 21(g)
- Specific provision overrides general definition
- Reproductive autonomy under Article 21 balanced with duty to raise child
- Age limit of 50 years is rational
- Statement of Objects and Reasons provides aid to interpretation
- Women above 50 cannot claim ART services as a legal right
