SHILLONG, Feb 15: The division bench of the High Court of Meghalaya has taken strong cognizance of the failure of the Institute of Human Reproduction, Guwahati, to comply with a court directive regarding the writ petition of a woman slightly over 50 years of age. She seeks to undergo a procedure under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, which does not permit such procedures for women over 50.
While hearing the petition filed by Silbania Lyngdoh, the division bench — comprising Chief Justice IP Mukherjee and Justice WDiengdoh — observed in its judgment that the petitioner had approached the Institute of Human Reproduction, Guwahati, for the procedure.
“The hospital advised her that the Act does not allow it, but if the Court directed them, they would comply. Consequently, she filed this writ challenging the Act’s provision that bars women over 50 from availing of the procedure and seeking a court order directing the hospital to carry it out,” the court stated.
The court recalled that in an earlier order, it had directed the hospital to form a medical board to assess whether the procedure could be safely performed on the petitioner.
“We also asked the Union of India and the State to take instructions on the matter. However, during the previous hearing, we were informed that the Institute had taken no action due to a procedural issue related to the service of the order,” the court noted.
The court further expressed shock over a letter dated February 5, 2025, in which the hospital stated that it does not have a multispecialty team, which is essential for the required medical board. The hospital further clarified that it primarily specializes in Mother & Child services.
“Hence, we suggest that the medical board be constituted at a Government hospital, a Medical College & Hospital, or any multispecialty hospital with the necessary expertise and facilities,” the court stated.
Expressing serious concern over the hospital’s conduct, the bench pointed out that the Institute initially told the petitioner to obtain a court order for the procedure but later claimed its inability to form a medical board.
“This effectively means they cannot even determine whether the procedure is safe or reasonably free from risk for the petitioner,” the court stated, adding that such an attitude cannot be tolerated.
Consequently, the court directed the head of the Institute of Human Reproduction to file an affidavit after consulting specialists in the procedure. The affidavit must clarify whether the procedure can be performed on the petitioner, its safety, and any associated risks.
Furthermore, the court warned that if the response is unsatisfactory, it would presume that the hospital either does not wish to take responsibility for its patients or lacks the competence to perform the procedure under the Act.
“If either of these is established, we may have to issue necessary orders restraining the Institute from performing any procedures under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021,” the court stated.
The court scheduled the next hearing for February 20. The Registry and the Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner have been instructed to immediately serve a copy of this order to the Institute.
