Observing that concerns about the parental capabilities of the couple cannot be retrospectively evoke to reduce their reproductive choice, the Supreme Court on Thursday (October 9, 2025) that the age limits under the compensation Act, 2021, do not apply to couples.
The BV Nagarathn and KV Viswanathan judges have brought concurrent views, while the auditory applications submitted three pairs that claimed that they had created and retained the embryos long before the enactment of the Act 2021, and therefore unjustly disqualified the subsequent age limits.
Pursuant to § 4 para. Ii) (a) (a) C) (a). (I) of the Act, the intended couple is eligible for compensation only if a woman is between 23 and 50 years and a man is between 26 and 55 years. The petitioners claimed that these limits could not retrospectively disqualify those who have already completed medical procedures that culminated in freezing embryos.
The justice of Nagarathna noted that the law should not distinguish between couples that naturally become pregnant and those who require medical attention to this. “… before the crime, the intended couples were on the same basis as the couples they wanted to naturally please. But the sharp resolution is that because of health reasons/disadvantages, children could have naturally. It also noted that, under personal laws, there were no age limitations and questioned why these restrictions should apply to couples that have decided for assisted reproduction for medical reasons.
The bench explained that it “does not listen to the wisdom of parliament” in storing age limits or exploring the validity of these restrictions, but was limited to the question of their retrospective request. He also decided that the exception would be expanded to cases where the embryo was created and frozen before the law began, although the implantation has not yet been implemented in the replacement womb. While the decision directly benefits from these three pairs in front of him, the court said that others in similar circumstances could apply for the high courts concerned for appropriate relief.
Explained: New Laws on Replacement Reproduction and Related Calls and Related Calls
“Unlimited correctly”
During the proceedings, the Government of the Union, represented by the next general lawyer Aishwarya Bhati, opposed the request and claimed that the age bar was designed to protect the child’s well -being and ensure medical security of both substitute and intended parents. She argued that the legal limits were based on professional medical recommendations and reflected natural reproductive timelines.
However, the bench refused this statement and believed that the state could not question the parental competences of the couple as soon as they have legally embarked on the substitute process. He stressed that reproductive autonomy, protected according to Article 21 of the Constitution, must be observed regardless of the concerns associated with advanced age. The court also relied on its 2009 decision under the administration of Tarita Srivastava v. Chandigarh administration, where he confirmed the right of pregnant surviving rape with intellectual disabilities to carry pregnancy to the term.
“Concerns about parenting and quality of gametes, while there are legitimate concerns of legislators (although we do not comment on it), there are no convincing reasons for retrospective application of the law, especially because the state allows some categories of couples (for those who naturally) to despite these concerns,” The court, “said the court,” the court said, “the court said,” the court said, “the court said,” the court said, “the court said,” the court said, “the court said,” the court said, ”
Bench noted that before 2021 there was no legal age of the ceiling, and noted that couples were active in the preliminary legal framework at that time. “The intended couples have constitutional law, which were unlimited when they started the refund.
Applications were submitted in the application for a written petition by a specialist in infertility Dr. ARUN MUTUVEL, which challenged several provisions of the Act of 2021 and its subsequent changes. The petitioners started the treatment of fertilization (IVF) in vitro in 2020 and, after medical counseling, decided to continue the replacement for complications such as excessive bleeding during previous pregnancy and the advanced age of mothers.
The court was informed that the transfer of embryos to the womb of the substitute had to be postponed due to the disturbances caused by the Covid-19 pandemia. At a time when they were able to restore the process at the beginning of 2022, the acts and its accompanying rules came into force, which makes them eligible due to the newly introduced age limits.
The bench noted that once the embryos were created and frozen, couples took all the basic steps necessary to initiate the replacement procedure and any subsequent steps would include only a substitute mother. As stated, they have shown their “apparent intention” to continue compensation.
Published – October 9, 2025 9:38
