Mrs.Xxxx vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioners, a married couple, approached the High Court seeking a direction to relax the upper age limit of 50 years for women to undergo Assisted Reproductive Service (ART) treatment, specifically IVF, and to allow them to proceed with treatment at Indira IVF Center or other registered IVF centers. They also sought a direction for semen analysis of the second petitioner and freezing of semen. The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners' medical condition, as evidenced by a report, indicated a pregnancy with faint cardiac activity in one gestational sac and no embryo in the other, suggesting a need for ART. The respondents included the Union of India, the Department of Health and Family Welfare, the State of Karnataka Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board, and the Appropriate Authority under the ART Act, 2021.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition in part. It declared that the notification dated 14-03-2023 is inapplicable to the case of the petitioners, citing the reasons provided in a previous judgment (W.P.No.15824/2023). The Court held that the petitioners are entitled to opt for surrogacy, subject to them fulfilling all other conditions and requirements under the statute, except for the restriction imposed by the notification dated 14-03-2023. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Authorities cannot insist or direct that a donor gamete cannot be used by the intending couple. The Authorities were directed to forthwith process any applications and issue Eligibility Certificate/Essentiality Certificate if the intending couple fulfills all other conditions. The issue of immediate semen analysis and freezing was implicitly covered by the overall direction to proceed with ART treatment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction to relax the upper age limit of 50 years for women to undergo Assisted Reproductive Service (ART) treatment, specifically IVF, in light of their medical condition and the provisions of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction for immediate semen analysis of the second petitioner and for freezing of semen required during the ART procedure? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that their medical condition necessitates ART treatment, and the upper age limit of 50 years should be relaxed to allow them to undergo IVF. They relied on the court's previous order in W.P.No.15824/2023, which granted similar relief. They also sought immediate procedural steps for semen analysis and freezing. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents did not present any specific arguments against the petitioners' claims in the provided text. The judgment notes that the respondents were represented, but their contentions are not detailed.