Can a 55 year old Legally Carry a Child in India? High Court refuses to bend India's IVF Age Limit without hard medical proof

In a significant constitutional challenge concerning reproductive autonomy and medical eligibility under India's Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) framework, the Bombay High Court has stepped in to examine a deeply contested question: can the state draw a hard age line, 50 years, to determine who is too old to carry a child? Two women, armed with doctors' certificates declaring them fit for pregnancy, have approached the Court challenging Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act, 2021, which imposes strict age ceilings on recipients of donor gametes. The Court has signalled it will not act on claims alone, it wants science, data, and an independent expert at the table before it reaches any conclusions.

The controversy began when two petitioners, one aged 55 and the other 53, found themselves squarely outside the age bracket permitted by the ART Act, 2021 for women wishing to conceive through donor sperm. The statute, as explained to the Court, caps female recipients of donor gametes at 50 years of age, while male donors may contribute up to the age of 55. Both petitioners presented medical certificates from gynecologists attesting to their fitness and physical capacity to carry a pregnancy to full term. Undeterred by the statutory bar, they moved the Bombay High Court with a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that Section 21(g) of the ART Act be declared unconstitutional and struck down as violative of Part III, the fundamental rights chapter, of the Constitution. As interim relief, they sought permission to immediately proceed with assisted reproductive treatments using donor gametes, even while the legal challenge played out.

The bench was not persuaded to grant relief at this stage, not because the challenge lacked merit on its face, but because it found a critical evidentiary vacuum at the heart of the petitions. The Court noted bluntly that the petitions contained no research, no analytical data rooted in medical science, and no substantive pleadings that could prima facie establish the women's fitness to sustain pregnancies at their advanced ages, a threshold finding necessary before any interim relief could be considered.

The Court noted that, "We do not find any research made and pleaded in the Petitions whereby it could be prima-facie said that the Petitioner women can be held to be medically fit and competent to forbear a pregnancy in their advanced age in life and give birth to children."

Recognising the scientific complexity and constitutional weight of the issue, the Court appointed Senior Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni as Amicus Curiae to assist it through the proceedings. The petitioners' counsel, in turn, graciously agreed to work alongside the Amicus and to carry out amendments to the petition, incorporating proper research-backed pleadings, within three weeks.

The matter has been listed on 22nd April, 2026, before the Urgent Supplementary Board, along with the connected Writ Petition.