4 min readChandigarhJan 30, 2026 09:04 PM IST
First published on: Jan 30, 2026 at 09:04 PM IST
In a significant ruling for older couples seeking parenthood, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a state authority order that denied a 47-year-old woman and her husband, aged over 56, access to assisted reproductive technology (ART), including IVF with donor eggs.
Justice Suvir Sehgal set aside the February 6, 2025 order of the State Appellate Authority, holding that none of the grounds for denial were legally sustainable. The couple, Sarbjit Kaur and her husband, lost their only son to jaundice in July 2024. Their daughter is married, and Sarbjit Kaur reached menopause four years ago, making natural conception impossible.
A gynaecologist had certified the couple medically fit for IVF but initially refused treatment citing the husband’s age exceeding the 55-year limit under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. After an earlier writ petition, the authority rejected their plea on four grounds: the husband’s age, the need for donor eggs due to menopause, health risks from a post-menopausal pregnancy, and the possibility of sex selection by couples with one living child.
Justice Sehgal rejected each of these grounds.
On age limits, the court held: “This Court in Manjit Kaur and another vs Union of India and others has opined that there is no age restriction for a commissioning couple as defined under the ART Act.” The court noted that Section 21(g) of the Act imposes age limits on individuals, not on the couple as a unit. Similar rulings by the Calcutta High Court were cited, and the state conceded that no appeal had been filed against those judgments.
On the objection to donor eggs, the judge pointed out that the ART Act explicitly permits gamete donation. “ART has been defined under the ART Act as all techniques that attempt to obtain a pregnancy by handling a sperm or the oocyte outside the human body… A gamete donor has been defined to be a person who provides sperm or oocyte with an objective of enabling an infertile couple or woman to have a child.” The court referred to statutory provisions that allow ART banks to source and regulate gamete donations.
Justice Sehgal said: “The intent of the statute would stand defeated if the reasoning given by respondent No.2 is accepted. This ground in fact violates the very spirit of ART Act as well as the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. The second ground, therefore, cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and is rejected.”
On health risks, the court relied on the treating doctor’s affidavit that both petitioners were healthy, the wife was fit to carry a pregnancy if implantation succeeded, and the husband’s sperm count was normal. The couple had been informed of risks and were willing to proceed. The judge ruled: “The risks involved in undergoing an ART procedure and chances of the genetic abnormality in the offspring are not an embargo from undergoing the procedure under the ART Act.”
The court also dismissed the concern over sex selection, noting there is no statutory bar on couples with one living child undergoing IVF.
“All the grounds given in the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 are not tenable and are turned down,” Justice Sehgal concluded, directing that the couple be permitted to undergo ART services, including IVF, for conception and implantation.
On the objection to donor eggs, the judge pointed out that the ART Act explicitly permits gamete donation. (File photo) 
Share
