Monday, 2 November 2026
EN हिं Sign In Contribute
Rajasthan High Court
Constitutional Law

ART Act Age Limits Upheld; Wife Under 50 May Use Donor Semen With Husband's Consent: Rajasthan High Court

Published: · NyayVidhan

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court upheld Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, under which clinics offer ART services only to women above 21 and below 50 and to men above 21 and below 55, and dismissed four couples' writ petitions (paras 1, 15, 27). A married woman within her limit may still be treated individually with donor semen, with her husband's Form-8 consent (paras 23, 25).

ART Act Age Limits Upheld; Wife Under 50 May Use Donor Semen With Husband's Consent: Rajasthan High Court

Judgment Intelligence

Petition Dismissed
A.M. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
2026:RJ-JP:40484-DB
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6556/2025 (with D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2224/2023, 17086/2026 and 17121/2026)
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
29 October 2026
Bench
Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja
Relevant Acts & Sections
Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 — Sections 2(1)(e), 2(1)(h), 2(1)(n), 2(1)(u), 21(g), 27(2); Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Rules, 2022 — Rule 13(1)(f)(iii), Form-8; Constitution of India — Articles 14, 21
Final Outcome

All four writ petitions were dismissed and pending applications disposed of (paras 26-28). The judgment does not separately decide the plea that the Act lacks a saving provision for couples who crossed the limit before it took effect (para 4).

Source Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — judgment dated 29 October 2026

View PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

  1. A statute is presumed constitutional; the challenger must show lack of legislative competence, breach of fundamental rights or manifest arbitrariness (para 7).
  2. The age limits rest on the welfare of mother and child and do not breach a married couple's personal liberty (paras 9-15).
  3. Section 21(g) sets separate limits for a woman and a man, not a composite limit for a couple; ‘woman’ covers married and single women (paras 17, 20).
  4. A man above 55 can neither receive ART services nor donate semen, but his wife, if within her limit, may use donor semen with his Form-8 consent (paras 19, 23, 25).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Four married couples challenged Section 21(g) after ART clinics refused them treatment because one spouse was over the age limit: in three cases the husband had crossed 55, and in one the wife had crossed 50 (paras 3.1-3.5). One couple had begun IVF in July 2021, before the Act came into force on 25 January 2022 (para 3.2). The petitioners said the limits are arbitrary for a married couple, do not apply to a ‘commissioning couple’, treat a married woman worse than a single woman and infringe Articles 14 and 21 (paras 4-4.3). The Union of India defended them as protecting the child's welfare (paras 5-5.3).

Court's Findings

The Court began from the presumption that a statute is constitutional: a challenger must show lack of legislative competence, breach of fundamental rights or manifest arbitrariness (para 7). The limits protect mother and child; the Union health ministry's letter of 31 March 2023 explains them by the parents' duty of care until the child is 18, life expectancy, menopause and the risks of late pregnancy and older paternal age (paras 9-11). Drawing on custody and adoption cases, the Court held that prospective parents' desire must yield to the child's welfare (paras 12-13). A disqualification with a nexus to its object is not ultra vires, so the limits are neither manifestly arbitrary nor a breach of personal liberty, a view shared by the Gauhati and Kerala High Courts (paras 14-15). On discrimination, the definition of ‘woman’ does not distinguish married from single women, and Section 21(g) sets separate limits for a woman and a man, not a composite limit for a couple (paras 17, 20). Section 27 caps semen donors at 55 too (paras 18-19). Rule 13 and Form-8 contemplate a married woman using donor semen with her husband's consent, as the Kerala High Court held in Devayani S. (paras 21-24).

Legal Principle

Section 21(g) of the ART Act, 2021, limiting ART services to women above 21 and below 50 and men above 21 and below 55, has a nexus with the welfare of mother and child and is valid. A married woman within her limit may receive ART services individually with donor semen, with her husband's Form-8 consent (paras 15, 23, 25).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

Where only the husband has crossed 55, the judgment points to a practical route. A wife above 21 and below 50 may approach an ART clinic as an individual and be treated with donor semen, with her husband's Form-8 consent under Rule 13(1)(f)(iii) of the 2022 Rules (paras 20-23, 25). Clinics should read Section 21(g) as separate limits, not a joint test for the couple (para 17). The route does not help a wife who has crossed 50, and the Court did not deal with treatment begun before the Act (paras 3.2, 4). Its reading of ‘woman’ parallels X v. Principal Secretary, where the Supreme Court held, prima facie, that the abortion law does not distinguish married and unmarried women.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 7

    Cited by the Court for the presumption of constitutionality of a statute and for the grounds on which legislation may be challenged: lack of legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights or other constitutional provisions, or manifest arbitrariness (para 7).

  2. Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009) 1 SCC 42
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 12

    In custody matters the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration and extends beyond financial means to moral and ethical welfare, physical well-being and emotional needs. The Court drew on it to stress the child's overall welfare rather than the parents' financial capacity (para 12).

  3. Jeshy C O v. Union of India and Ors. 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 8250
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 13

    The Kerala High Court upheld the maximum composite age for prospective adoptive parents under the Adoption Regulations, 2017, holding that the best interests of the child, not the rights of prospective parents, are paramount. The Court quoted it and drew the principle that the desire of prospective parents must remain subservient to the welfare of the child (para 13).

View all precedents (16)
  1. Javed v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 368
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 14, 15

    The Supreme Court upheld Sections 175(1)(q) and 177 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (disqualification of persons with more than two living children) because the disqualification had a nexus with the Act's purpose. The Court applied the same nexus test to the age limits in Section 21(g) (paras 14-15).

  2. Ramji Lal Jat v. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 217
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 14, 15

    Following Javed, the Supreme Court treated a provision disqualifying candidates with more than two living children as non-discriminatory and intra vires the Constitution; cited by the Court for the nexus test (paras 14-15).

  3. Pankaj Kumar Das and Anr. v. Union of India 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 5083
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5, 15

    Cited by counsel for the Union of India (para 5.3). The Court noted that the Gauhati High Court had taken a similar view on the age limits in Section 21(g) (para 15).

  4. Nandini K. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 SCC Online Ker 8235
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5, 15

    Kerala High Court (Single Judge) upheld Section 21(g) insofar as it prescribes age limits, while permitting the petitioners there, who had begun treatment before the Act, to continue it; principally relied on by the Union of India (para 5.2). The Court noted that the Kerala High Court took a similar view in 'Nandini K. (supra)' (para 15); the judgment does not say whether this means the Single Judge's judgment or the Division Bench's appeal judgment (para 5.3).

  5. Union of India v. Devayani S & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 11786
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 4, 24, 25

    Cited by the petitioners (para 4.4). The Court quoted paragraphs 21-23 and 30 of this Kerala High Court Division Bench judgment: a wife within a commissioning couple may receive third-party sperm with her husband's consent, the man's age limit applies only where his own gamete is used, and treating married and single women differently would be unfair (para 24). The Court reached the same conclusion on donor semen (para 25).

  6. Shyja T.K. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. WP(C) No. 9349/2025, decided on 08.04.2025 by Kerala High Court
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4

    Cited by counsel for the petitioners in support of the challenge (para 4.4); not discussed by the Court.

  7. Sanchita Ghosh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 12155
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4

    Cited by counsel for the petitioners in support of the challenge (para 4.4); not discussed by the Court.

  8. Shyamoli Saha and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. AIR 2025 Cal 55
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4

    Cited by counsel for the petitioners in support of the challenge (para 4.4); not discussed by the Court.

  9. Sarbjit Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. CWP No. 6818/2025, decided on 22.01.2026 by Punjab & Haryana High Court
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4

    Cited by counsel for the petitioners in support of the challenge (para 4.4); not discussed by the Court.

  10. Neeru Singh and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. 2026 SCC OnLine Chh 7387
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4

    Cited by counsel for the petitioners in support of the challenge (para 4.4); not discussed by the Court.

  11. Jayanta Dasgupta and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 5931
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4

    Cited by counsel for the petitioners in support of the challenge (para 4.4); not discussed by the Court.

  12. Union of India v. Nandini K. & Ors. WA No. 696/2024, decided on 19.12.2025 by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 5

    Cited by counsel for the Union of India in support of the age limits (para 5.3). Para 15 refers to 'Nandini K. (supra)' without saying whether this appeal judgment or the Single Judge's judgment is meant.

  13. Kavitha Anand v. State of Tamil Nadu Writ Petition No. 35158/2024, decided on 07.02.2025 by Madras High Court
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 5

    Cited by counsel for the Union of India in support of the age limits (para 5.3); not discussed by the Court.

Topics: Reasonable Classification (Article 14) Best Interests of the Child Reproductive Autonomy Manifest Arbitrariness
NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: 29 October 2026 Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja
PDF
Join our WhatsApp Group
✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt