Introduction

The case of Nandini K v. The Union of India represents a significant judicial examination of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 ('ART Act'). Filed in the Kerala High Court on December 19, 2022, the petitioners—couples seeking or undergoing assisted reproductive services—challenged the constitutionality of the upper age limits imposed by the ART Act. Specifically, women above 50 years and men above 55 years are prohibited from availing ART services under Section 21(g) of the Act. The petitioners argue that these age restrictions infringe upon their fundamental right to reproduction.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice V.G. Arun delivered a nuanced judgment addressing the constitutionality of Section 21(g) of the ART Act. The Court acknowledged the petitioners' emotional distress due to the sudden imposition of age restrictions, especially for those already undergoing treatment when the Act came into force. While recognizing the State's authority to regulate assisted reproductive technologies, the Court found the absence of transitional provisions and the arbitrary imposition of age limits problematic. Consequently, the judgment directed the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board to review and recommend changes to the age limits and to consider the inclusion of transitional provisions. Additionally, the Court allowed existing treatments to continue, emphasizing the need for reasonable accommodation of individuals already in the process of ART.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court referenced several pivotal Supreme Court decisions to underpin its reasoning:

• Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration [(2009) 9 SCC 1]: Affirmed reproductive choice as an aspect of personal liberty under Article 21.
• K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India [(2017) 10 SCC 1]: Recognized privacy, dignity, and autonomy as fundamental rights, further elaborating on the scope of personal liberty.
• Shayara Bano v. Union of India [(2017) 9 SCC 1]: Introduced the concept of 'manifest arbitrariness,' emphasizing that legislative actions must have a rational basis and not be arbitrary.

These precedents collectively emphasize the sanctity of personal liberty, privacy, and the right to found a family—rights that the petitioners assert are compromised by the ART Act's age restrictions.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Arun's reasoning navigated the balance between State regulation and individual rights:

• Legislative Intent and Procedure: The Court noted the ART Act's rapid implementation without adequate deliberation on the upper age limits, deeming this omission as a possible oversight.
• Comparison with International Practices: Highlighted the diversity in international regulations regarding age limits for ART, indicating that rigid age caps are not universally adopted and may not align with individual circumstances.
• Impact of Age Limits: Addressed the practical implications of the ART Act, such as halting ongoing treatments and causing emotional and psychological distress to petitioners.
• Reasonable Restrictions: Acknowledged the State's authority to impose reasonable restrictions but questioned the rationality and proportionality of the specific age limits set.

Ultimately, while the Court did not declare Section 21(g) wholly unconstitutional, it identified significant issues regarding its implementation and the lack of transitional provisions, thus mandating a review by the National Board.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications:

• Legal Precedence: Sets a benchmark for challenging legislative provisions that may infringe upon fundamental rights, particularly in the realm of reproductive technologies.
• Policy Revision: Compels the National Board to re-evaluate and potentially revise the age restrictions, leading to more flexible and individualized regulations.
• Protection of Ongoing Treatments: Ensures that couples already undergoing ART are not adversely affected by sudden legal changes, aligning with principles of fairness and justice.
• Heightened Scrutiny: Encourages a more thorough legislative process in the future, ensuring that human rights considerations are integral to policy formulation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To enhance understanding, the Court's decision navigates through several complex legal concepts:

• Article 21 of the Constitution: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, interpreted to include the right to privacy, dignity, and reproductive choice.
• Manifest Arbitrariness: A legislative action is considered manifestly arbitrary if it lacks a rational basis, is capricious, or imposes excessive restrictions without justification.
• Reasonable Restrictions: The State can impose limitations on fundamental rights, provided they are rational, proportionate, and serve a legitimate purpose.
• Transitional Provisions: Legal measures that allow ongoing activities to continue under old regulations despite new laws coming into effect, preventing abrupt disruptions.

The judgment underscores that while the State has the authority to regulate assisted reproductive technologies, such regulations must not be arbitrary and should consider the nuanced needs and rights of individuals seeking these services.

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court's ruling in Nandini K v. The Union of India marks a pivotal moment in the intersection of reproductive rights and legislative regulation. By questioning the arbitrary imposition of age limits without comprehensive deliberation and transitional provisions, the Court reinforced the fundamental rights of individuals to pursue reproductive choices. The directive for the National Board to review and potentially amend the ART Act's provisions ensures that future regulations will more thoughtfully balance ethical, social, and individual considerations. This judgment not only safeguards the rights of current and future couples seeking ART but also sets a precedent for judicial oversight over legislative actions affecting personal liberties.