Calcutta High Court Grants Couple IVF — In a landmark order blending law, medicine, and compassion, the Calcutta High Court has permitted a Narendrapur-based couple to pursue in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment, even though the husband has crossed the statutory age limit prescribed under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021.
Justice Amrita Sinha, who presided over the matter, held that the wife’s reproductive rights should not be compromised merely because her husband exceeded the permissible age. The ruling has reignited conversations around reproductive justice, the right to parenthood, and the need to re-examine rigid age barriers in assisted reproductive laws.
The Couple’s Journey: Hope Interrupted
Married in 2017, the couple endured years of failed attempts to conceive naturally. Doctors recommended IVF in 2019, when the husband was 53—well within the legal limit of 55 for men and 50 for women.
But fate intervened. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted clinics and delayed procedures. By the time they revisited the process in 2023, the husband had turned 57 and was deemed ineligible under the ART Act’s age restrictions.
The wife, however, remained under the legal age ceiling and medically fit to carry a pregnancy. She approached the High Court, arguing that it would be grossly unfair to deny her a chance at motherhood for no fault of her own.
Calcutta High Court Grants Couple IVF: Court’s Reasoning
Justice Sinha’s verdict emphasized two key principles:
- Reproductive Rights of Women – Parenthood, particularly through IVF, is centered on the woman’s body and physiology. Denying her treatment because of her husband’s age, the court ruled, would be unjust.
- Timing and Law – Since the couple had initiated treatment before the Act came into force, their intent could not be disregarded by subsequent restrictions.
Quoting past precedents, the court reiterated: “For the ineligibility of the man, the wife ought not suffer.”
📖 Related reading: Full text of the ART Regulation Act, 2021 (PRS India)
Medical Perspective: Age, Risk, and Science
Medical experts note that while advanced paternal age may slightly increase genetic risks, successful IVF largely depends on the woman’s reproductive health. In this case, the wife was declared fit, and clinics affirmed there were no medical grounds to deny treatment.
IVF involves fertilisation of the egg outside the body, after which the embryo is implanted in the woman’s uterus. With modern techniques such as genetic screening and embryo freezing, risks associated with older fathers can be mitigated to a significant extent.
📖 Reference: Indian Council of Medical Research – ART Guidelines
Legal Ambiguities in ART Law
The ART Act was designed to bring uniformity, curb unethical practices, and regulate surrogacy and IVF clinics. However, critics argue that rigid cut-offs may not account for genuine, exceptional cases.
This case exposes the tension between standardisation and individual justice:
- Should age be an absolute barrier, or should medical fitness matter more?
- Should couples who began treatment before the Act be granted exemptions?
The High Court’s interpretation tilts toward a rights-based approach, prioritising the woman’s autonomy and agency.
📖 Comparative framework: UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) – which regulates IVF without strict paternal age limits.
Broader Social and Ethical Implications
The ruling resonates beyond one couple:
- Reproductive Autonomy: Affirms the right of women to pursue motherhood without arbitrary state interference.
- Changing Demographics: With later marriages and rising infertility rates, rigid laws may leave many families excluded.
- Future Children: Courts must also balance parental rights with the welfare of future offspring.
Ethicists suggest India may need a more flexible, case-by-case approach—guided by medical advice rather than blanket legal bars.
A Precedent for Future Cases
This is not the first time Indian courts have intervened to relax reproductive laws. In earlier rulings, similar couples were granted relief where the wife remained under the eligible age.
Such judgments could pave the way for amendments to the ART Act or guidelines allowing exceptions under judicial or medical supervision.
📖 For context: Supreme Court Judgments Database – for exploring related reproductive rights cases.
Conclusion: Balancing Law, Science, and Humanity
The Calcutta High Court’s decision highlights a crucial judicial principle: laws must serve people, not the other way around. While statutory age limits are intended to ensure safety and ethics, their mechanical enforcement risks producing injustice.
For the Narendrapur couple, the ruling brings renewed hope. For Indian society, it sparks an urgent conversation on how to balance scientific safeguards with human aspirations.
In the words of one fertility expert: “Parenthood is not just a biological function, it is a profound human right. Laws should protect it, not obstruct it.”
Also read: Home | Channel 6 Network – Latest News, Breaking Updates: Politics, Business, Tech & More
