Gauhati High Court Upholds Age Restrictions in Assisted Reproductive Technology Act Court dismisses challenge to Section 21(g) as constitutional, prioritizing maternal health, fetal outcomes, and ethical standards.
In a significant judgment, the Gauhati High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, which imposes upper age limits for individuals seeking Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services. The court dismissed a writ petition filed by Pankaj Kumar Das and others, challenging the age restrictions as violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners, a married couple who have been unable to conceive naturally, argued that the statutory age limit unjustly infringes upon their reproductive autonomy and access to ART services, despite their medical fitness. They contended that the rigid age-based exclusion fails to account for individual medical assessments and is arbitrary, thereby offending Article 14's guarantee of equality and Article 21's protection of personal liberty.
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, heard arguments from both sides, with the petitioners represented by Mr. B. K. Gogoi and the respondents by Mr. D.J. Das and Mr. B. Chakravarty. The court noted that the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, constitutes a comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at addressing ethical, medical, and societal concerns associated with ART services.
The court's judgment emphasized that while reproductive autonomy is an integral aspect of personal liberty under Article 21, it is subject to reasonable restrictions and permissible regulation, especially in the contexts of social welfare and public health. The age limits prescribed in Section 21(g) are based on scientific evidence concerning maternal health risks, fetal outcomes, and child welfare, and thus fall within the legislative domain.
The court underscored the presumption of constitutionality attached to legislative enactments, particularly social welfare legislation, and stated that judicial review must defer to legislative policy unless manifest arbitrariness or lack of rational basis is evident. The age-based classification under Section 21(g) was found to be rational, applying uniformly to all intending couples, and bearing a direct nexus to the safe, ethical, and socially responsible regulation of ART services.
In dismissing the petition, the court rejected the submission that the petitioners' initiation of ART prior to the Act's enactment granted them a vested right to continue treatment contrary to statutory prescriptions. The court held that exemptions based on hardship or medical fitness would constitute an impermissible substitution of judicial discretion for legislative policy.
The judgment reaffirms the balance between individual rights and societal interests in the realm of reproductive technology, upholding the legislative decision to impose age limits as a matter of policy supported by scientific and ethical considerations.
Bottom Line:
Constitutional validity of Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 upheld, as it does not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Statutory provision(s): Constitution of India, Articles 14, 21; Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, Section 21(g).
Pankaj Kumar Das v. Union of India, (Gauhati)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2823632
