The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Sarbjit Kaur v. State of Punjab (2026 SCC OnLine P&H 689), has held that the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 imposes no restriction on couples with one living child from accessing in vitro fertilisation. The Court clarified that there is no statutory bar under the ART Act preventing such couples from opting for IVF, delivering a significant pronouncement on the scope of reproductive autonomy under the 2021 legislation.
Background
The petitioner, Sarbjit Kaur, approached the High Court after encountering obstacles in accessing IVF treatment despite already having one living child. The core legal question was whether the ART Act, 2021, which regulates the practice of assisted reproductive technology across India, restricts access to IVF procedures for couples who are not childless. The Act, enacted to provide a comprehensive regulatory framework for ART clinics and banks, prescribes conditions and eligibility criteria for commissioning couples and individuals seeking assisted reproduction.
The respondents contended that the legislative framework contemplated restrictions on the availability of ART services based on the existing family composition of the commissioning couple. The petitioner argued that no express provision of the ART Act, 2021 imposes any such restriction, and that denying access to IVF on the basis of having one child would amount to an unwarranted curtailment of reproductive autonomy without legislative mandate.
Key Holdings
No Statutory Bar on IVF for Couples With One Child: The Court held unequivocally: "There is no bar in the ART Act, 2021 for a couple to opt for IVF when they have one living child." The Bench found no provision within the Act that restricts IVF access based on the number of existing children of the commissioning couple.
Textual Interpretation of the ART Act: The Court engaged in a plain reading of the eligibility provisions under the ART Act, 2021 and found that the statute does not prescribe childlessness or infertility as a mandatory precondition for availing IVF services. The absence of an express restriction was treated as indicative of legislative intent not to impose one.
Reproductive Autonomy Affirmed: The judgment recognises that decisions relating to reproduction, including the choice to undergo IVF, fall within the domain of personal autonomy. The Court declined to read into the statute a restriction that the legislature did not enact, thereby preserving the couple's right to access lawfully available medical procedures.
Implications for Practitioners
Practitioners advising clients in the reproductive medicine space should note that this decision provides judicial clarity on a question that had generated practical uncertainty since the ART Act came into force. Fertility clinics and ART banks that may have adopted a cautious approach by declining to treat couples with existing children now have High Court authority supporting the permissibility of such treatment.
For family law practitioners, this ruling reinforces that reproductive choices remain within the zone of personal liberty unless the legislature expressly provides otherwise. The judgment may be cited in analogous disputes where administrative or institutional gatekeeping is imposed without statutory basis.
However, practitioners should remain attentive to the distinction between IVF access and surrogacy, where the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 does impose specific conditions including requirements relating to existing children. This judgment should not be read as extending to surrogacy eligibility, which operates under a distinct statutory framework with different eligibility criteria.
Source: Sarbjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2026 SCC OnLine P&H 689 (Punjab and Haryana High Court, January 22, 2026). This article is based on a publicly available judicial decision. Veritect Legal Intelligence does not guarantee the completeness or continued accuracy of this information and recommends consulting the full judgment and seeking independent legal advice for specific matters.