Bombay High Court Disposes Of IVF Age Limit Plea After Petitioners Ruled Medically Unfit
On Thursday, July 18, 2026, the Bombay High Court in Mumbai disposed of a petition challenging the 50-year upper age limit for women under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Act, 2021. A bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad ruled that the constitutional challenge had become academic after medical reports from the city's government-run Cama and Albless Hospital declared both petitioners, aged 54 and 56, medically unfit to undergo In Vitro Fertilization (IVF).
The two women had filed the petitions seeking a declaration that Section 21(g) of the ART Act is unconstitutional and violative of their fundamental rights. The statutory provision restricts assisted reproductive technology services using donor gametes to women between the ages of 21 and 50. The petitioners had also sought interim permission from the court to undergo fertility treatment and conceive.
The petitioners' advocate, Kalyani Tulankar, argued that the law created an unfair imbalance. While the statute restricted female recipients to 50 years of age, it permitted male sperm donors to donate sperm up to the age of 55. To support their case, the petitioners initially relied on certificates from a private gynaecologist stating they were physically fit to carry pregnancies to full term.
To verify these claims, the High Court directed the women to undergo detailed medical examinations at Cama and Albless Hospital to assess their physical fitness for the procedure. This followed a similar course of action previously adopted by the Supreme Court of India in a comparable matter.
The medical reports, which were submitted to the court in sealed envelopes, ultimately concluded that both women were medically unfit for IVF. One petitioner was found to have suffered from hypothyroidism for 15 years and had been post-menopausal for two years. The second petitioner had suffered from diabetes mellitus for four years and had been post-menopausal for five years. Both medical fitness certificates explicitly stated that the women were medically unfit to undergo the IVF procedure.
In light of these findings, the bench decided not to examine the constitutional validity of Section 21(g). The court noted that the petitioners had approached the court with the hope of proceeding only if they were found medically fit. Since extensive clinical tests proved otherwise, the court ruled there was no reason to address the statutory challenge.
The court permitted the petitioners to obtain copies of their medical reports, while directing that the original files remain sealed and preserved with the court registry.
