The petitioners in the present case, a married couple facing infertility issues, had been undergoing treatment for a pretty long time.
The petitioner-wife conceived twice with the help of Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART). However, the first child died at the age of 6 due to pneumonia. When she got pregnant the second time by re-commencing the ART Treatment, it turned out to be a tubular pregnancy and they had to have it aborted.
Thereafter, when they began to continue the ART treatment in order to conceive, the ART Act of 2021 was enacted. In said Act, Section 21(g) caps the upper age limit for assisted reproductive treatment for men at 55 years and for women at 50 years.
Due to this, the petitioners were prevented from continuing the treatment in view of this interdiction.
Therefore, they approached the Court challenging the constitutional validity of the ART Act on the ground that it infringes their reproductive choice as citizens, which the Supreme Court has declared as a fundamental right.
The Court took note of the tragic situation that the couple had gone through, and granted them permission to continue ART treatment at the hospital of their choice.
Source: Barandbench
