Rajasthan High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Upper Age Limit Prescriptions Under Section 21(g) ART Act

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 1 November 2026

Case: Not stated in the source
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: Not stated in the source
Citation: Not stated in the source
Statutes: Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 — s.21(g)
Source: Verdictum

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

The Rajasthan High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the upper age limits for availing Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services under Section 21(g) of the ART Act. The Court clarified that a wife below 50 years is not rendered ineligible if her husband is over 55, provided she uses donor semen with his consent.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

The desire of prospective parents to have a child is subservient to the welfare of the child, and the prescribed age limits for ART services are constitutionally valid as they serve the child's best interests.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates should advise clients seeking ART services to be aware of the age limits under Section 21(g) of the ART Act. Litigants should note that a wife below 50 can still access ART with donor semen if her husband is over 55, provided he consents.

Key Legal Takeaways

1Upper age limits for ART services under Section 21(g) of the ART Act are constitutionally valid.
2Child's welfare is paramount over prospective parents' desires in ART decisions.
3A wife below 50 years can use donor semen with her husband's consent, even if he exceeds the age limit of 55 years.

The Legal Issue The Rajasthan High Court considered the constitutional validity of the upper age limits prescribed for individuals seeking Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services under Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. The specific concern was whether these age restrictions infringed upon the rights of prospective parents and if a wife's eligibility was affected by her husband exceeding the age limit.

Court's Reasoning The Court held that the desire of prospective parents to have a child, while significant, is subservient to the welfare of the child. The prescribed age limits are designed to ensure the best interests and welfare of the child born through ART, considering factors such as the parents' ability to raise the child effectively over a sustained period. Therefore, the Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 21(g) of the ART Act. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a wife who is below the age of 50 years is not rendered ineligible for ART services merely because her husband has crossed the age of 55 years, provided she opts to use donor semen with his explicit consent.

What Follows The decision means that the age criteria stipulated in Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, remain in force. ART clinics and practitioners must continue to adhere to these age limits when providing services. Prospective parents must meet the age requirements, with the specific allowance for wives under 50 to use donor semen with spousal consent if the husband is over 55.