The Madras High Court recently upheld the upper age limit prescribed for women under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. The court ruled that a woman who chooses ART services for conception must be biologically and financially capable of supporting the child until they reach adulthood. The judgment reinforces the importance of ensuring that the interests of the child are protected.
Court’s Justification for the Upper Age Limit
Justice S. Sounthar, while pronouncing the judgment, noted that a woman seeking ART services bears the responsibility of raising the child at least until they attain the age of majority (18 years). The court observed:
Read Also:- Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Section 13 of the Family Courts Act
“A woman intending to use ART to conceive must be biologically and financially capable of supporting the child for another 18 years so as to bring them up. In India, the retirement age is 60 years, making it highly doubtful whether a woman or commissioning couple getting a child after 50 years of age will be in a position to support the child for 18 years.”
Further, the court pointed out the health risks associated with pregnancy beyond 50 years. Given the increased risks of complications, the legislature deemed it necessary to impose an upper age limit for ART services. The court stated:
“By virtue of the aging process, the risk to the life of a mother above the age of 50 years is significantly higher compared to younger women. The risk to pregnancy also increases after 50 years. Hence, the legislature thought it fit to fix an upper age limit for the application of ART.”
The Legal Contention of the Petitioner
The case arose when petitioner Kavitha Anand challenged the order of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which rejected her application for ART services due to her age. She contended that under Section 2(u) of the ART Act, the term ‘woman’ includes any female above the age of 21 years, without specifying an upper age limit.
Read Also:- Madras High Court Orders CBCID Probe Against Law Firm Over Alleged Illegal Land Dealings
Her counsel argued that the absence of an upper age limit in the definition of ‘woman’ meant that the authorities had erred in rejecting her request. Furthermore, it was contended that Section 21(g) only mandated ART clinics to provide services to women between 21 and 50 years but did not explicitly prohibit women above 50 from seeking ART services.
Court’s Interpretation of ART Act Provisions
The court, however, disagreed with the petitioner’s interpretation and upheld the government’s decision. It ruled that Section 21(g) of the ART Act imposes a duty on ART clinics to provide services only to women within the prescribed age range (21 to 50 years), thereby creating a legal right only for women within that bracket. Women outside this age limit do not have an enforceable right to claim ART services.
Furthermore, the court noted that although the definition of ‘woman’ in Section 2(u) does not prescribe an upper age limit, the Act sets two distinct upper age limits:
- 35 years for a woman donating oocytes
- 50 years for a woman intending to receive gametes
By leaving the upper age limit out of the definition section, the legislature avoided confusion while still restricting ART services through specific provisions. The court explained:
Read Also:- Madras High Court: Subsequent Bail Pleas in Same FIR Must Be Listed Before Roster Judge
“Whenever a word is defined under the Act in a particular fashion, it should be understood as per the Act. However, if a specific section provides a different meaning—either restricting or enlarging the definition—the meaning in the specific section will prevail.”
Rationality Behind the Age Restriction
The court further emphasized that fixing an upper age limit is necessary for the well-being of the child and the mother. It stated that reproductive autonomy, while an essential part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, must be balanced with the responsibility of raising a child.
“A woman’s reproductive autonomy comes with a corresponding duty to care for the child. The legislature considered both the financial and biological aspects of parenting and concluded that a woman above 50 years of age may not be in a position to adequately support the child for 18 years.”
The court also rejected the argument that the age limit was irrational, stating that any statutory age limit will inevitably result in marginal cases where someone just beyond the threshold is excluded. However, such limits are necessary for regulatory clarity and public policy.
Thus, finding no error in the order of the Secretary, the court dismissed the plea.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. G. R. Hari
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. E. Sundaram Government Advocate, Mr. K. S. Jeyaganesan Central Government Standing Counsel
Case Title: Kavitha Anand c. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: W.P.No.35158 of 2024
