The Delhi High Court has allowed the couple’s remaining cryopreserved embryos to be transferred for in vitro fertilization (IVF) despite the woman crossing the prescribed age limit, observing that a technical or pedantic reading of the law cannot nullify reproductive rights and access to parenthood.
A bench of Justice Puruchindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the objective of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, or the ART Act, is to ensure ethical and safe practices, and not to create insurmountable barriers that hinder the legitimate continuation of legally initiated treatment processes.
“This Court is also aware of the fact that reproductive rights and access to parenthood in contemporary constitutional jurisprudence cannot be reduced to a purely technical or pedantic application of statutory terms divorced from the factual context in which these rights are asserted,” the court said in its May 25 order.
He added that the ART law is primarily regulatory in nature. “The aim of the legislation is to ensure ethical and safe practices of antiretroviral therapy and not to create insurmountable barriers to the legitimate continuation of treatments that have already been carried out legally.”
The couple went to court after arriving at the hospital, and the treating doctor refused to continue the artificial insemination process because the woman had exceeded the maximum age of 50 years. They requested permission to undergo frozen embryo transfer for the remaining five cryopreserved embryos under the Antiretroviral Treatment Act.
The couple, who chose IVF following the death of their son in May 2025, were declared medically fit after assessment, consultation and necessary investigations. They executed consent forms for embryo freezing, frozen embryo transfer and related procedures on March 7, 2026. The embryo transfer was unsuccessful.
In their petition, the couple claimed that they were within the permissible age limit when they started IVF treatment and crossed the limit stipulated under the ART Act only during the treatment. They said the age restriction under Section 21(g) could not be applied mechanically once the embryos had been created and cryopreserved. The couple said the remaining embryos constitute their reproductive material and form part of their constitutionally protected decision-making autonomy and reproductive choice.
In opposing this petition, the government stated that the upper age limits under the ART Act were consciously determined on the basis of scientific, ethical and child welfare considerations. She cited the report of the Expert Committee on the Implications of Pregnancy at Advanced Parental Age, dated January 21, 2026, which indicated that pregnancy at advanced maternal age carries increased maternal and perinatal risks.
The report concluded that legal age limits represent a reasonable, evidence-based policy that is based on medical, psychosocial, and child welfare considerations.
The court noted that the couple underwent the necessary medical evaluation, counseling, and treatment under the supervision of experts before starting the antiretroviral treatment process, and they were declared medically fit. It noted that the government had failed to record any medical opinion demonstrating that the use of existing cryopreserved embryos would pose any immediate or exceptional medical risk beyond the public policy concerns underlying the legislation.
