In a significant ruling that could influence the interpretation of India's fertility laws, the Calcutta High Court has permitted a 49-year-old woman to undergo in vitro fertilisation (IVF) under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, even though her husband is 57 years old—two years above the statutory age limit prescribed for men.

The judgment reinforces the principle that a woman's eligibility for assisted reproductive treatment should not automatically be denied because of her spouse's age, particularly where donor gametes are being used and the husband has no direct physical role in the treatment.

What the Court Held

Justice Krishna Rao ruled that the woman's eligibility under the ART Act should be assessed independently.

The court observed that in the proposed IVF procedure, the husband would have no physical involvement because the treatment would use donor gametes obtained through a registered ART bank. Therefore, his age alone should not become an obstacle to the woman exercising her reproductive rights.

The court directed the hospital to proceed with the IVF treatment in accordance with applicable legal and medical requirements.

Reliance on Earlier Precedent

In reaching its decision, the High Court relied on its earlier judgment in the 2024 Shyamoli Saha case, where similar relief had been granted despite the husband exceeding the prescribed age limit.

Justice Rao observed that while age restrictions under the ART Act were introduced to prevent misuse and regulate assisted reproductive technologies, those provisions should not be interpreted in a manner that defeats the very purpose of the legislation.

The judgment also interpreted the definition of "patient" under the ART Act to mean that an individual partner may seek assisted reproductive services independently, provided the statutory requirements applicable to that individual are satisfied.

Background of the Case

The couple, married since 2014, had reportedly struggled with infertility for several years.

They approached the High Court after a hospital declined to provide IVF treatment because the husband had crossed the maximum age of 55 years prescribed under Section 21(g)(ii) of the ART Act.

According to their counsel, both spouses were medically fit for treatment, and the husband's age was the sole reason for the refusal.

The State opposed the petition, arguing that the ART Act expressly prescribes upper age limits for both men and women seeking assisted reproductive treatment.

Why the Judgment Matters

The ruling could have important implications for fertility treatment in India.

It suggests that, in certain circumstances, one partner's statutory ineligibility may not necessarily prevent the other from accessing assisted reproductive technologies, particularly where the treatment method does not require that partner's biological participation.

Legal experts believe the judgment may encourage ART clinics to examine applications more carefully rather than adopting a blanket interpretation of age-related provisions.

However, the decision is based on the facts of this specific case and does not automatically remove the age limits prescribed under the ART Act for all applicants. Broader changes to the legal framework would require either legislative amendments or further judicial clarification.

Balancing Regulation and Reproductive Autonomy

The judgment reflects the continuing effort of Indian courts to balance regulatory safeguards governing assisted reproductive technologies with individuals' reproductive autonomy.

As demand for fertility treatments continues to rise, the ruling is likely to become an important reference point in future cases involving the interpretation of age eligibility under the ART Act, particularly where questions of reproductive rights and access to medical treatment intersect.