In a significant judgment upholding reproductive autonomy, the Delhi High Court has permitted the wife of an Indian Army soldier, currently in a persistent vegetative state, to continue with In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) procedures. The court ruled that the husband’s initial consent provided at the start of the treatment remains valid, effectively allowing the wife to exercise her right to motherhood despite her husband’s inability to provide fresh written consent.
The core legal question before the court was whether an IVF procedure, initiated voluntarily by a couple, could be stalled due to the subsequent incapacity of one partner to provide written consent as required under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Act. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that the husband’s prior active participation and consent were sufficient, and that the wife’s consent would now be treated as valid on his behalf to ensure the substantive intent of the law is met.
The petitioner and her husband, an Army personnel, had opted for IVF treatment in June 2023 to conceive a child. However, the trajectory of their lives changed drastically in July 2025. While patrolling, the husband fell from a significant height, sustaining a severe traumatic brain injury.
Medical evaluations concluded that the soldier is in a persistent vegetative state with no foreseeable scope of neurological recovery. Following the accident, the army hospital stopped the couple’s IVF treatment, citing the lack of fresh consent from the husband. This prompted the wife to approach the High Court, asserting her constitutional rights to motherhood, dignity, and reproductive autonomy.
The court emphasized that the couple had originally volunteered for the treatment and there was no evidence to suggest the husband had ever withdrawn his consent. Justice Kaurav remarked that insisting on a “physically impossible” act of fresh written consent from a man in a vegetative state would render the entire purpose of their initial decision “otiose.”
“The right to reproductive autonomy, it must be remembered, is a fundamental right. The ART Act must be so interpreted which furthers the said right, and not derogates from it,” the court observed.
Addressing the Medical Board’s opinion that the chances of retrieving viable sperm were “meagre,” the court took a philosophical and compassionate stance. Quoting from the Bhagavata Purana—”A living being obtains a body under the supervision of Daiva”—the court noted:
“It is destiny that determines whether or not the fortune of parenthood shall get bestowed upon persons. This Court ought not to interdict the fate of the petitioner by insisting from Mr. Kumar, that which is physically impossible and impracticable.”
The High Court directed that the husband’s original action of joining the IVF treatment be treated as sufficient compliance with Section 22 of the ART Act. The court clarified that authorities cannot disentitle the petitioner solely based on the absence of her husband’s current written consent.
The ruling ensures that the petitioner can proceed with the extraction and cryopreservation of her husband’s genetic material, with her consent being treated as valid for all procedures related to the IVF.
