A division bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and Hiten S Venegavkar was hearing pleas by two women aged 53 and 55, who sought a declaration from the court that Section 21(g) of the ART Act was “unconstitutional”. (File photo)The Bombay High Court, while issuing notices on pleas by two women in their fifties seeking pregnancy through assisted reproductive technology (ART) and ordering medical tests for evaluation of their eligibility for ART, has sought to know the opinion of a senior gynaecologist on the strength of aged women beyond 45-55 years of enduring full-term pregnancy and delivering a healthy child.As per the law, ART encompasses techniques that aim to obtain pregnancy by handling the sperm or oocyte outside the body, then transferring gametes or embryos into a woman’s reproductive systemSection 25 of ART Act prescribes certain medical tests and if the results are in favour of commissioning couple, they would be able to undergo ART method to beget a child.Last month, the HC had appointed senior advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni as amicus curiae (friend of the court) to assist it on the pleas. It noted that the petitioners had not provided research to preliminarily establish their medical fitness for pregnancy and childbirth at advanced ages.A division bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and Hiten S Venegavkar was hearing pleas by two women aged 53 and 55, who sought a declaration from the court that Section 21(g) of the ART Act was “unconstitutional”.The provision requires clinics to provide ART services only to women aged above 21 years and under 50. The petitioners produced gynaecologist certificates affirming their ability to carry a full-term pregnancy pregnancy full-term and deliver a child.Advocate Kalyani Tulankar argued for the petitioners that the state government introduced ART rule allows male donors up to age 55, yet limits age of the woman who is to accept the donated sperm and nurture foetus in her womb to 50 years.Story continues below this adOn Wednesday, the bench issued notices to respondents including Union and state Health Ministries along with National and State ART and Surrogacy Boards seeking their response during the next hearing.Following the same course adopted by the Supreme Court in its February 2026 ruling, the HC permitted the petitioners to undergo specific medical tests between May 5 and 25 under the supervision of the State ART and Surrogacy Board, along with evaluations, as may be advised by qualified and authorised medical practitioners for assessing their eligibility for ART. The test reports will have to be handed over to court during next hearing on June 19.The HC also sought from Kumbhakoni to collect “information from a senior gynaecologist of high repute as regards what would be the physical capacity and strength of an aged woman beyond 45 to 55 years of enduring a full-term pregnancy.” The information is also sought on the capacity of aged women for “delivering a healthy child and whether there is any risk of the foetus developing congenital defects as compared to a young female attaining motherhood.”Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions. Expertise & Authority Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage. Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in: Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include: Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes). Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty). Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict. Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability. Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges. Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More © The Indian Express Pvt Ltd