[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjeet Kaur And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 15 December, 2025
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
CWP-13670-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(202-2) CWP-13670-2025
Manjit Kaur and another ... Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents
Judgment Judgment Judgment Whether only Whether the full
Reserved on Pronounced on Uploaded on the operative judgment is
part of the pronounced
judgment is
pronounced
07.11.2025 15.12.2025 15.12.2025 No Yes
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. R.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Shalini Attri, Senior Panel Counsel, UOI
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Harinder Pal Singh Ishar, Addl. A.G., Punjab
for respondents No.2 to 4.
Mr. Sahil Khunger, Advocate
for the respondent No.5.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
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.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
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 Section 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 Section 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 dated 31.03.2023, 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.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective
submissions.
5. Petitioners have not challenged any of the statutory provisions of
the Act of 2021. Limited prayer made in the petition is for permission to
undergo IVF treatment. Primarily, reliance placed by the petitioners is upon the
judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Sanchita Ghosh and another versus
Union of India and others, (WPA-12154-2023, decided on 08.04.2024),
whereby the provisions of the statute have been exhaustively discussed.
6. Act of 2021 defines the 'commissioning couple' as an infertile
married couple, who approach an ART clinic or bank for obtaining its
authorised services. The combined age of the commissioning couple has not
been laid down under the statute. Section 2 (1) (n) of the Act of 2021 lays down
that 'patients' means an individual or a couple, who approach a registered ART
clinic for management of infertility. The term patients, therefore, recognizes the
concept of a couple as being distinct from an individual. Section 21 of the Act
of 2021 lays down general duties of ART clinics and bank, who have been
mandated to ensure the compliance of statutory requirements. Section 21 (g) of
the Act of 2021 makes it mandatory for the clinic to apply ART services to a
woman only if she is above the age of 21 years and below 50 years of age, and
to a man if he is above the age of 21 years and below 55 years of age. This sub-
provision further reinforces that age restriction has been placed on individual
gender. There is no age restriction for a couple. It is in this context that the
observations of the Calcutta High Court in Sanchita Ghosh's case (supra) are
relevant and are reproduced hereunder:-
"29. Forging the said lack of restriction for
commissioning couples with Section 21(g)(i) and (ii), the only
possible interpretation is that unless the restriction is
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
applicable to both the spouses who comprise of the
commissioning couple, there is no bar in the commissioning
couple to approach the appropriate clinic for assistive
reproductive technology services.
30. In the event either the woman or the man
comprising the commissioning couple are eligible to have
assistive reproductive technology, there is no reason why the
bar stipulated for individual women and men should be
incorporated into the purview of the commissioning couple as
well. The age-related ineligibility of one of the spouses need not
affect the other, if they comprise of a commissioning couple.
31. Thus read, the bar available in Section 21(g),
clauses (i) and (ii) shall be read as follows:-
(i) If a commissioning couple approaches a
clinic/bank for assisted reproductive technology
services, no upper age limit restriction will be
applicable to them unless both spouses of the
commissioning couple are debarred respectively under
sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-Section (g) of Section 21
of the 2021 Act.
(ii) In the event either of the couples qualify in
respect of the age limits as stipulated in Section 21(g),
he or she can approach the clinic to have assisted
reproductive technology service, irrespective of the fact
that he or she is the constituent of a commissioning
couple and her spouse is not eligible age-wise.
(iii) In the second scenario above, the commissioning
couple, as a commissioning couple, shall be permitted to
avail the facilities of assisted reproductive technology
services, since there is no bar on a commissioning
couple acting as such, to have such reproductive
technology irrespective of any age bar.
(iv) It is made clear that in the event one of the
spouses is eligible under Section 21(g) and the other is
not, it will be at the option of the clinic whether or not to
use the gamete donated by the ineligible spouse in the
process of assisted reproductive technology."
7. In view of the above, eligibility of the petitioner no.1 to apply for
ART services operates independently of the ineligibility of petitioner no.2.
8. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is evident that
petitioner no.1 falls within the eligibility criteria laid down under Section 21 (g)
(i) of the Act as she is less than 50 years and is not debarred from seeking ART
for the purposes of reproduction. Respondent No.5, therefore, cannot deny ART
services to petitioners merely because one of them has crossed the threshold
age limit laid down under Section 21 (g) of the Act of 2021.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
9. For the aforegoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that
petitioners cannot be debarred under the Act of 2021. A direction is issued to
the respondents to permit the petitioners to avail ART services.
10. Writ petition is disposed of.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
15.12.2025
Kamal
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
