The Delhi high court has allowed the transfer of a couple’s remaining cryopreserved embryos for In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) despite the woman exceeding the prescribed upper age limit, observing that a technical or pedantic reading of the law cannot defeat reproductive rights and access to parenthood.The court observed that the government failed to place on record any medical opinion demonstrating any medical risk.A bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the objective of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, or the ART Act, is to ensure ethical and safe practices, not to create insurmountable barriers that defeat the legitimate continuation of lawfully initiated treatment processes.“This court is also conscious of the fact that reproductive rights and access to parenthood in the contemporary constitutional jurisprudence cannot be reduced to a purely technical or pedantic application of statutory conditions divorced from the factual context in which such rights are asserted,” the court said in its May 25 order.It added that the ART Act is fundamentally regulatory in character. “The object of the enactment is to ensure ethical and safe ART practices and not to create insurmountable barriers defeating legitimate continuation of treatment processes already lawfully undertaken.”The couple approached the court after a hospital, and the treating doctor declined to continue the IVF because the woman had crossed the upper age limit of 50. They sought permission to undergo frozen embryo transfer of their remaining five cryopreserved embryos under the ART Act.The couple, who opted for IVF following the death of their son in May 2025, was declared medically fit after evaluation, counselling, and necessary investigations. They executed consent forms for embryo freezing, frozen embryo transfer, and related procedures on March 7, 2026. The embryo transfer was unsuccessful.In their petition, the couple contended that they were within the permissible age limit when they commenced IVF treatment and crossed the threshold prescribed under the ART Act only during the course of treatment. They argued that the age restriction under Section 21(g) cannot be applied mechanically once embryos have been created and cryopreserved. The couple said the remaining embryos constitute their reproductive material and form part of their decisional autonomy and reproductive choice protected under the Constitution.Opposing the plea, the government submitted that the upper age limits under the ART Act were consciously prescribed based on scientific, ethical, and child-welfare considerations. It cited the Expert Committee Report on Implications of Conceptions at Advanced Parental Age, dated January 21, 2026, which noted that conception at an advanced maternal age carries increased maternal and perinatal risks.The report concluded that the statutory age limits represent a reasonable and evidence-based policy grounded in medical, psychosocial, and child-welfare considerations.The court noted that the couple underwent medical evaluation, counselling, and necessary treatment under expert supervision before commencing the ART process, and were declared medically fit. It observed that the government failed to place on record any medical opinion demonstrating that using the existing cryopreserved embryos would pose any immediate or exceptional medical risk beyond the general policy concerns underlying the legislation.