Can a woman who has crossed 50 still go ahead with embryo transfer after 50 under the ART Act if her embryos were lawfully created and frozen while she was within the age limit? The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said no, holding that the age bar must be met at every stage of treatment.
Chandigarh: The maximum age under Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 applies on the day the procedure is actually undertaken, and the age limits apply to each spouse separately and not to the couple as a unit, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held, refusing to permit a woman above 50 to complete IVF treatment using embryos frozen in 2023 [Veena Devi and Another v. Union of India].
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya disposed of six connected writ petitions, led by CWP No. 18704 of 2026, in each of which either the husband or the wife had crossed the maximum age prescribed by the Act. The Court also held that a woman has an independent right to avail ART services even if her husband is above 55.
Age is tested at each stage
The Court rejected the argument that a right had vested when the embryos were frozen. It held:
“The mandatory requirement under Section 21(g) of the ART Act is that the clinic shall apply ART services only to a woman and a man who are below the age of fifty years and fifty-five years, respectively. Therefore, the prescribed age limit must be satisfied on the day these services are availed or the relevant procedure is undertaken.”
Under the definition of assisted reproductive technology in Section 2(1)(a), the Court said, the procedure has two stages, the creation of embryos outside the body and their transfer into the woman’s reproductive system, and the age limit must be met at each. Freezing embryos before the woman crossed 50 does not entitle her to the second stage after she crosses that age. It noted that the constitutional validity of Section 21(g) was not under challenge, and that the Gauhati High Court had upheld it in Pankaj Kumar Das v. Union of India (2025).
The Court also relied on a January 21, 2026 report of an expert committee constituted by the Department of Health Research, which found pregnancy beyond 50 inherently high-risk and the age limits founded on medical and child-welfare considerations.
The couple’s plea
The lead petition was filed by a primary school teacher and her husband, an agriculturist. On November 22, 2023, nine embryos were created and cryopreserved at a clinic when both were 47, within the limits of 50 years for a woman and 55 years for a man. A first frozen embryo transfer in July 2024 did not succeed, and a second transfer in February 2025 did not result in a continuing pregnancy. The wife turned 50 on December 10, 2025, leaving four embryos still in storage.
The couple sought permission for transfer of one of the remaining embryos and a declaration that the age limit be read with reference to the commissioning couple as a unit. They argued that the treatment was an ongoing process begun in 2023, that a right had accrued when the embryos were frozen, and relied on a coordinate bench ruling in Manjit Kaur v. Union of India (2025). The clinic said it had no objection, subject to the Court’s permission. The Union of India opposed the pleas, stating that the limits followed the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare.
No “couple age” in the Act
Declining to read a composite couple age into the statute, the Court observed:
“A provision which has not been provided for specifically, cannot ordinarily be read into the enactment as it would be expanding the scope of the enactment itself. This is nothing short of re-framing the statute which is beyond the scope of judicial interpretation.”
It respectfully disagreed with the Calcutta High Court’s ruling in Sanchita Ghosh v. Union of India (2024), on which Manjit Kaur was based, holding that “for ART/IVF services under the Act individual potential of the woman and the man matters.”
A woman’s independent right
Pointing to the separate definitions of “commissioning couple” and “woman” in the Act and Rule 13(f)(iii) of the ART Rules, 2022, the Court held:
“In view of the discussion, it is held that a woman has the right to avail the services/undertake procedures independently under the ART Act, irrespective of her husband having crossed the prescribed age limit.”
Accordingly, women petitioners below 50 were left free to avail ART services if they wish, and the petitions were disposed of.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling settles, at least within the Punjab and Haryana High Court, that the ART Act’s age ceilings are tested at each treatment stage, so frozen embryos created within the limit cannot be transferred once the woman crosses 50. It closes the “couple as a unit” route that some earlier rulings had opened, creating a clear divergence with the Calcutta High Court’s view.
At the same time, the judgment affirms that a woman below 50 can seek ART services on her own, regardless of her husband’s age, giving clinics a clear rule on individual eligibility.
Case Title: Veena Devi and Another v. Union of India and Others
Case No.: CWP No. 18704 of 2026 and connected cases
Bench: Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, Punjab and Haryana High Court
Date of Judgment: November 2026 (date to be verified)
Appearances: Advocates Kunal Thapa, Aman Mittal, Simranjit Singh, Ravi Malik, Abhishek Rawal and S.S. Tiwana for the petitioners; Senior Central Government Counsel Dheeraj Jain with Central Government Counsel Gurneet Sagoo; Assistant Advocate General Akhil Kamra for Punjab; Advocates Mahender Joshi and A.S. Nirmaan for respondent No. 4 in connected cases