Bilaspur : The Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur has allowed a childless couple to proceed with In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART), holding that the husband’s age beyond the statutory limit cannot automatically disqualify his wife, who independently satisfies the age requirement under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad delivered the order on October 6, 2026 in WPC No. 4926 of 2026.
The case concerned Archana Tiwari and her husband Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, who had been married for about 22 years without a surviving child. Archana, aged about 47 years when the matter was considered, had earlier undergone IUI treatment in 2013 and conceived in 2015, but the pregnancy ended in miscarriage at around four months. The couple subsequently approached Aayush Test Tube Baby Centre in Raipur for IVF/ART treatment and was found medically suitable after examination and counselling.
The difficulty arose because Pradeep Kumar Tiwari was about 57 years old. Section 21(g) of the ART Act permits ART services to a woman above 21 and below 50 years and to a man above 21 and below 55 years. The competent authority rejected the couple’s representation dated June 24, 2026 by an order dated July 31, 2026, solely because the husband had crossed the prescribed age limit.
Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that Section 21(g) establishes separate, gender-specific age limits and does not prescribe a combined age restriction for a commissioning couple. They contended that because Archana remained within the statutory age limit and had been medically found fit for IVF treatment, her eligibility could not be defeated merely because her husband had crossed the age applicable to men. They also relied upon the constitutional protection of reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The State opposed the petition, maintaining that the age limits under Section 21(g) form part of the statutory regulatory safeguards and that the Court could not create an exception that Parliament had not expressly provided. According to the State, since the husband was 57 years old and had crossed the prescribed upper age of 55 years, the competent authority was justified in rejecting the request.
The High Court, however, found that the ART Act does not create the concept of a combined or composite age limit for a commissioning couple. Referring to Section 2(1)(n), which defines “patients” to include an individual or couple seeking infertility treatment, the Court held that the statutory scheme adopts an individual-centric approach to the age requirements. Section 21(g) separately specifies the permissible ages for women and men.
The Court observed that the Act does not expressly state that the ineligibility of one spouse automatically makes the other spouse ineligible. It held that treating the husband’s age as an automatic disqualification for the wife would effectively introduce a composite age restriction that the legislature had not enacted. The Court stated that “such interpretation would amount to reading into the Act a composite age restriction for a couple which is not expressly provided by the legislature.”
The judgment also placed the statutory restriction within the broader constitutional framework of reproductive autonomy. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India and X2 v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court recognised reproductive choice, decisional autonomy and reproductive healthcare as facets of the rights protected under Article 21.
The High Court also considered several decisions of other High Courts dealing with age restrictions under the ART Act, including decisions concerning continuation of IVF treatment, access to ART where one spouse satisfies the statutory age requirement, and the impermissibility of importing restrictions into the statute that Parliament has not expressly enacted. The Court particularly noted the reasoning that the ART Act is fundamentally regulatory and is intended to ensure safe and ethical ART practices rather than create unnecessary barriers to legitimate reproductive choices.
Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the petitioners’ case warranted judicial intervention. It found that the wife was within the permissible age limit, had been medically examined and found suitable, and that the only ground for rejection was the husband’s age. The Court held that treating his age as an absolute bar would unnecessarily curtail the wife’s reproductive choice.
The High Court therefore set aside the July 31, 2026 rejection order and directed the authorities and the ART clinic to permit the couple to proceed with IVF/ART treatment. The treatment remains subject to the wife’s medical eligibility and compliance with all statutory, ethical and regulatory requirements under the ART Act and applicable Rules and Regulations. The Court specifically clarified that the husband’s having crossed the age of 55 years would not, by itself, operate as a bar to the wife’s treatment.
The Court further directed that if the wife crosses the age of 50 during an ongoing treatment cycle commenced pursuant to the order, that intervening attainment of age would not by itself require discontinuation or frustrate the ongoing cycle, subject to medical advisability and other applicable statutory requirements. The ART clinic was also protected from penal or adverse action merely for providing treatment in compliance with the Court’s order, provided all other legal and medical safeguards were followed.
The judgment is significant because it distinguishes between the individual age eligibility of each spouse and an assumed composite age limit for a couple. It does not dispense with the ART Act’s regulatory safeguards or create an unrestricted right to IVF beyond the statutory framework. Rather, the Court held that an administrative authority cannot add a disqualification that is not expressly contained in Section 21(g), particularly where the woman independently satisfies the prescribed age requirement and is medically fit.
The Court also made clear that the relief is confined to the peculiar facts of the case and should not be understood as dispensing with any other mandatory requirement under the ART Act, Rules or Regulations. The order ultimately balances the regulatory objectives of the ART legislation with the constitutional protection of reproductive autonomy and personal liberty under Article 21.
Case Reference: The case is Archana Tiwari & Another v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WPC No. 4926 of 2026, 2026:CGHC:43127. The petitioners were represented by Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate, while Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer, appeared for the State.
