Delhi High Court: The court's decision came on a petition filed by the soldier's wife. She had requested that instructions be given to extract and preserve her husband's genetic material for IVF.

Delhi HC Verdict: The Delhi High Court has issued a favorable ruling. The court has granted permission for an Army soldier to proceed with an IVF procedure. The soldier is in a coma-like state, and there is no hope for his recovery in the near future. Justice Purushendra Kumar Kaur stated that the soldier's prior consent, which he provided at the time of the IVF procedure, will be considered sufficient.

Furthermore, under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, the wife's consent is considered valid. The court's decision came on a petition filed by the soldier's wife, who had requested that her husband's genetic material be extracted and preserved for IVF.

What did the petitioner tell the court?

The petitioner stated that in June 2023, the couple decided to undergo IVF to conceive. In July 2025, her husband fell from a height while on patrol, causing a severe head injury. This was a type of traumatic brain injury. Following this, the soldier was undergoing treatment at an Army hospital. The couple's IVF procedure was halted. The woman then approached the court, claiming her constitutional right to motherhood, dignity, and reproductive autonomy. In its decision on April 13, the court stated that the petitioner and her husband voluntarily chose to undergo IVF. There was no evidence or indication on record to suggest that the husband had not consented to the procedure.

Court said – this is a fundamental right

The Court opined that even though there was no indication of consent from the petitioner's husband, it would be appropriate, reasonable, and just for the authorities to take steps to bring the IVF procedure to its logical conclusion. The Court stated that failing to do so would render the prior consent given by the petitioner's husband void.

Their fundamental purpose of pursuing IVF would be defeated. It is a well-established legal principle that procedure is actually an aid to justice. It should never be acceptable to subvert the very purpose of a law simply by adhering to the letter and strictures of a procedural provision.

The court stated that it is important to remember that the right to reproductive autonomy is a fundamental right. The court stated that the ART Act should be interpreted in a way that promotes this right, rather than diminishing it. The court stated that whether the petitioner will have children is not in human hands; it is fate that determines whether a person will have the good fortune of parenthood. Citing the Bhagavata Purana, the court stated that a living being receives a body under the supervision of God.