MUMBAI, April 23 -- The Bombay High Court on Wednesday allowed two women who have challenged the age restriction for women undergoing reproductive procedures under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Act, 2021, to be medically evaluated to assess their eligibility for the treatment, while keeping constitutional questions pending. Both petitioners are in their 50s and qualify as having 'advanced maternal age' (AMA) or 'aged pregnancies'. A division bench of Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice Abhay J Mantri also flagged concerns over the risks involved for women over a certain age to undergo full-term pregnancy. The bench also questioned whether a woman of an 'advanced age' can safely sustain such assisted procedures and deliver a healthy child. The court raised apprehensions over possible congenital abnormalities in such a child. While noting that while the women's "burning desire" to have a child even at an advanced age is understandable, the court wondered whether it is feasible to support this desire. "In case the burning desire to have a child is fulfilled, but if the child is deformed, is it still fulfilling? Some fitness freaks can keep their body healthy till 60 and run a marathon but does it mean they can have a healthy child," the judges asked. The petitioners are seeking permission to undergo ART procedures to conceive a child through donor gametes. According to their petitions, the women, aged 53 and 55, are seeking the declaration of Section 21 (g) of the ART Act as "unconstitutional and ultra vires", and urged the court to strike it down. The section establishes maximum age limits for accessing treatments such as in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) to secure the health of a mother and child. Both petitioners claimed to have been issued medical certificates by a gynaecologist, declaring them medically fit and capable of carrying a pregnancy to its full term and delivering a child. The court on March 23 appointed senior advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni to assist the court in the matter. During Wednesday's hearing, Kumbhakoni argued that the petition raises an "interesting issue", as the statute provides a strict age limit "without any transitional provision". He pointed out that several courts, including the Supreme Court, have intervened to grant relief in such cases despite the statutory age bar. He submitted that the absence of a transitional framework creates a dilemma in several cases, emphasising that couples who have already initiated treatment but crossed the threshold age midway could potentially face penal consequences. Referring to recent Supreme Court orders, Kumbhakoni highlighted that while the constitutional validity of the Act has not been directly struck down, interim relief has been granted to couples by relaxing the age bar in certain cases. He, therefore, urged the court to adopt a "balanced approach" and at least grant interim relief to the women in such time-sensitive matters. "We are running against time in these cases," he said, adding that the women should get a chance to test their eligibility to undergo the reproductive procedures. The court, however, expressed concern over the medical and physiological implications of permitting ART beyond a certain age. "Up to a particular age, a body is capable of giving birth to a healthy child. Women can become a mother even at the age of 45, but the doctor says the body starts ageing after 40. After that, the degeneration of the body begins and that's why they call it 'middle age'," the bench said. However, considering orders passed by various courts across the country, the high court allowed the petitioners to undergo medical tests under professional and government supervision, between May 5 and May 25, with reports to be submitted before the next hearing on June 19....