LAWS(P&H)-2025-12-54

MANJIT KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On December 15, 2025
MANJIT KAUR Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this court, inter alia, for issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to permit and provide assisted reproductive technology (ART) services, including In Vitro Fertilization (IVF treatment), to the petitioners for conception of a human embryo and its implantation in petitioner no.1.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners were married in 2004 and have consulted various doctors in India and abroad, but petitioner no.1 has not been able to conceive. They approached Nova IVF Fertility Centre, Jalandhar-respondent no.5, but were informed that they could not be given treatment as petitioner no.2 had surpassed the age of 55 years and is debarred under Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (for short 'the Act of 2021') from undergoing the treatment.

(3.) Petition has been contested by the official respondents. In its response, respondent no.1-Union of India has stated that as petitioner no.2 has exceeded the age criteria prescribed under Sec. 21 (g) (ii) of the Act of 2021, petitioners are ineligible to avail ART services. It has been stated that the age restriction has been laid down in the Act of 2021 after considering the best interest of the child to be born through the ART procedure. A stand has been taken that as petitioners have filed the writ petition as a couple, they fall within the definition of a 'commissioning couple', which requires satisfaction of the twin conditions regarding age laid down in Sec. 21(g) (i) and (ii) of the Act of 2021. Reference has been made to the Report No.129, Annexure R-1, of the Standing Parliamentary Committee on Health and Family Welfare, as well as the minutes of the meeting of the National Board, Annexure R-3, and instructions dtd. 31/3/2023, Annexure R-4. A separate response has been filed by the State of Punjab-respondent nos. 2 to 4, wherein it has been stated that as petitioner no.2 is above the age of 55 years, he is not eligible to undergo the treatment as male fertility and sperm quality declines with age, especially after the age of 55 years. Respondent no.5 has not filed any response, but has adopted the reply filed on behalf of respondent no.1.