The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a woman who has crossed the age of fifty years cannot undergo embryo transfer under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, even if the embryos were lawfully created and cryopreserved while she was within the permissible age limit. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya ruled that the statutory age bar applies on the date the assisted reproductive technology service is availed, rejecting the petitioners' contention that freezing embryos conferred a vested right to complete the treatment cycle.
Statutory Age Limit Must Be Met At Time Of Procedure
The court interpreted Section 21(g) of the ART Act, which stipulates that ART services may be applied only to a woman below fifty years of age and a man below fifty-five years. Justice Dahiya observed that the procedure comprises two distinct stages—creation and cryopreservation of embryos, followed by transfer into the reproductive system. The mandatory age requirement must be satisfied at every stage. Merely because embryos were frozen before the woman crossed the maximum age does not entitle her to undertake the subsequent transfer stage after crossing the prescribed threshold.
Justice Dahiya stated that the argument regarding a vested right acquired upon freezing embryos cannot be accepted. The plain language of Section 21(g) requires the clinic to verify the age eligibility on the day the services are rendered or the relevant procedure is undertaken. Consequently, the restriction operates as a continuing condition precedent rather than a one-time checkpoint at the inception of treatment.
Age Limits Apply To Each Spouse Individually, Not As A Unit
The court further held that the age limits prescribed under the Act apply to each spouse separately and not to the couple as a single unit. The petitioners had sought a declaration that the age ceiling should be construed with reference to the commissioning couple collectively, arguing that the husband's subsisting right to procreate through ART stood frustrated because the procedure could only be undertaken with his wife. The court rejected this submission, clarifying that the statutory framework treats the eligibility of the woman and the man as independent criteria.
However, the court noted that a woman retains an independent right to avail ART services even if her husband has crossed the age of fifty-five years. This interpretation reinforces the individual nature of the statutory qualification.
Distinguishing Coordinate Bench Precedent
The petitioners relied on a coordinate bench decision in Manjit Kaur v. Union of India (2025), which had permitted a couple to proceed with treatment where one spouse was within the age limit. Justice Dahiya declined to follow that reasoning, holding that the statutory text does not support a collective reading of the age restriction. The court emphasised that the legislative intent, as reflected in the unambiguous wording of Section 21(g), mandates individual compliance.
Factual Background Of The Lead Petition
The judgment arose from a batch of six petitions in which either the husband or the wife had crossed the maximum age prescribed under Section 21(g). The facts of the lead petition involved a primary school teacher and her husband, an agriculturist. On 22 November 2023, nine embryos were lawfully created and cryopreserved at a clinic. At that time, both petitioners were forty-seven years old, placing them within the statutory age limits.
In July 2024, the first frozen embryo transfer remained unsuccessful. In February 2025, a second transfer resulted in pregnancy, which was terminated after five to six weeks. The wife crossed the maximum permissible age of fifty years on 10 December 2025. At that stage, four embryos remained cryopreserved at the facility. The clinic did not dispute the petitioners' medical suitability and expressed no objection to transferring one of the remaining embryos, subject to judicial authorisation.
Can A Woman Use Frozen Embryos After Crossing The Age Of Fifty Under The ART Act?
No. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the age limit under Section 21(g) of the ART Act must be satisfied on the day the embryo transfer procedure is undertaken. Cryopreservation of embryos while within the age limit does not create a vested right to complete treatment after the woman has crossed fifty years of age.
Stage of Procedure | Age Requirement Under Section 21(g) | Court's Finding |
|---|---|---|
Creation and Cryopreservation of Embryos | Woman < 50 years; Man < 55 years | Must be satisfied at the time of this stage |
Embryo Transfer (Subsequent Stage) | Woman < 50 years; Man < 55 years | Must be satisfied again on the date of transfer; prior compliance insufficient |
The court dismissed the petitions, upholding the statutory bar. The ruling establishes that eligibility for ART services is assessed afresh at each procedural stage, and the individual age limits are non-derogable conditions that cannot be circumvented by treating the couple as a unit or by invoking rights allegedly accrued at an earlier stage of treatment.