The Kerala High Court has granted permission to a 50-year-old woman and her 55-year-old husband to resume assisted reproductive technology services despite exceeding legal age ceilings, ruling that the couple had initially commenced their fertility treatment prior to the passage of current statutory age limits.
In an order issued on August 19, Justice Harisankar V Menon directed that the couple be permitted to undergo treatment upon submitting a notarized undertaking accepting all medical risks, liabilities, and consequences associated with the procedure. The undertaking must be submitted to the Kerala State ART and Surrogacy Board or the district collector.
Central Government Opposition And Judicial Precedent
The legal challenge arose after the treating hospital declined to proceed with the in vitro fertilization procedure, citing age limits set under Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. The couple subsequently filed a petition naming the Union of India, the district collector, the National and Kerala State ART Boards, the director of health services, and the facility as respondents.
The Central Government opposed the plea, maintaining that the age restrictions outlined in Section 21(g) are mandatory, cannot be relaxed, and disentitle the couple from receiving further medical services.
However, the court noted that the petitioners agreed to assume full responsibility for any potential risks or complications. Justice Menon pointed to a May 19, 2026 ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dr Pushpa and Another vs Union of India and Others, which granted similar relief to an over-age couple after they provided a formal risk undertaking. The High Court held that the Kerala petitioners were entitled to equal treatment under the law.
Decade-Long Treatment History And Medical Documentation
Court records show that the couple first began IVF treatment at the hospital in 2013, at a time when both partners met the age eligibility criteria later codified under the 2021 law.
To establish their ongoing course of care, the petitioners presented several hospital records to the court. These included a July 14, 2016 summary detailing IVF and Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection cryopreservation, a current embryo viability certificate dated April 23, and official hospital correspondence dated April 24.
The court affirmed that once the required notarized undertaking is executed and submitted by the couple, the hospital and health authorities must provide the requested ART services in accordance with established procedures.
