Can Women Over 50 Use Assisted Reproductive Technology in India Services? Bombay High Court Examines

The Bombay High Court is currently examining a significant question in Swati Sharad Parab vs Union of India [Writ Petition (Lodging) 40634 of 2025]—whether women above the age of 50 can be considered medically fit to access Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services under Indian law.

The matter arises from two petitions filed by women aged 55 and 53, who have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act, 2021. This provision sets a strict upper age limit of 50 years for women seeking ART services.

Under the existing legal framework, women between the ages of 21 and 50 are permitted to avail ART services, while men between 21 and 55 can participate as donors. The petitioners argue that this restriction unfairly excludes women who may still be medically capable of carrying a pregnancy.

Represented by Advocate Kalyani Tulankar, the petitioners have relied on medical certificates issued by a gynecologist. These certificates state that both women are physically fit and capable of carrying a pregnancy to full term and delivering a child.

However, the Division Bench comprising Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Abhay Mantri expressed reservations regarding the absence of broader scientific backing. The Court noted that individual medical opinions alone may not be sufficient to assess the larger implications of permitting ART for women in advanced age.

“We do not find any research made and pleaded in the Petitions whereby it could be prima-facie said that the Petitioner women can be held to be medically fit and competent to forbear a pregnancy in their advanced age in life and give birth to children. In such matters, where the claims are not supported by any analytical data based on medical science and research, we are of the view that an Amicus Curiae needs to be appointed to assist the Court,” the judges observed.

In light of this, the Court appointed Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni as Amicus Curiae to assist in evaluating the medical and legal complexities involved. The bench has also permitted the petitioners’ counsel to assist and make necessary amendments based on further research.

The case has been adjourned for three weeks and is scheduled for further hearing on April 22. The outcome of this matter is expected to have wider implications on reproductive rights and the regulatory framework governing ART services in India.