This article has been written by Kilimi Praneeth Reddy a law student pursuing the B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) program at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University (RMLNLU), Lucknow.
Abstract
Recent legal and policy developments reflect a significant evolution in the relationship between individual rights, State authority, and regulatory governance in India. The proceedings before the Bombay High Court concerning age restrictions under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 highlight the tension between reproductive autonomy and medical regulation, raising constitutional questions under Article 21. In parallel, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the economic and social value of unpaid domestic labour by recognising that homemakers’ contributions cannot be equated with unskilled labour while determining compensation.
In the fiscal sphere, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that tax exemptions are policy concessions subject to withdrawal in public interest, while mandating fairness through reasonable notice, thereby balancing State flexibility with legitimate expectations. Further, the Rajasthan High Court has upheld the dignity of the legal profession by restraining arbitrary disengagement of advocates and emphasising adherence to principles of natural justice. Simultaneously, proposed amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 signal an expansion of regulatory oversight over digital and user-generated content, raising important concerns regarding freedom of speech and intermediary liability. Collectively, these developments demonstrate a broader legal trend towards balancing constitutional freedoms with evolving regulatory needs, ensuring that governance remains responsive while safeguarding fundamental rights.
Keywords: Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART), Age Restriction, Reproductive Autonomy, Article 21, Medical Fitness, Judicial ReviewCan Women Above 50 Years Avail Assisted Reproductive Technology? Bombay High Court to Examine Constitutional Validity of Age Restriction
Introduction
In a significant case engaging the intersection of reproductive autonomy, medical ethics, and statutory regulation, the Bombay High Court is set to examine the constitutional validity of age restrictions imposed under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. The matter raises an important legal question whether women above the age of 50 years can be denied access to Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services despite being medically fit, and whether such restriction violates fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution.
Factual Background
The issue arose from two writ petitions filed by women aged 53 and 55 years, challenging Section 21(g) of the ART Act, which prescribes eligibility criteria for availing ART services. The provision mandates that only women between the ages of 21 and 50 years are eligible to undergo ART procedures, while men may donate sperm up to the age of 55 years.
The petitioners contended that this statutory restriction arbitrarily denies them the opportunity to conceive through ART, despite possessing medical certificates issued by qualified gynecologists affirming their ability to carry a pregnancy to term. They sought a declaration that Section 21(g) is unconstitutional and ultra vires Part III of the Constitution, along with interim relief permitting them to undergo ART procedures.
Core Legal Issue
The central question before the Court is:
Whether the statutory age limit of 50 years for women under Section 21(g) of the ART Act violates fundamental rights such as equality (Article 14), personal liberty (Article 21), and reproductive autonomy?
Judicial Observations
The Division Bench comprising Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Abhay J. Mantri expressed reservations regarding the absence of substantial medical research supporting the petitioners’ claims of fitness at an advanced age.
Key Judicial Observation
“We do not find any research… whereby it could be prima facie said that the petitioner women can be held to be medically fit… in such matters… an Amicus Curiae needs to be appointed.”
The Court emphasised that issues involving reproductive capacity at an advanced age require scientific and empirical backing, rather than mere medical certification, especially when constitutional validity of legislation is under challenge.
Appointment of Amicus Curiae
Recognising the complexity of the issue, the Court appointed Ashutosh Kumbhakoni as Amicus Curiae to assist in evaluating:
- Medical and scientific evidence regarding late-age pregnancies
- Legislative intent behind age restrictions
- Constitutional implications of restricting reproductive rights
The Court also permitted the petitioners to amend their pleadings based on further research and expert inputs.
Legal and Constitutional Dimensions
The case raises multiple constitutional considerations:
- Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): Includes reproductive autonomy and the right to make decisions regarding parenthood
- Article 14 (Equality): Questions arbitrariness in fixing a rigid age limit, especially when men are allowed participation up to 55 years
- Doctrine of Reasonable Classification: Whether the age restriction has a rational nexus with the objective of ensuring safe motherhood
Additionally, the case engages broader concerns of:
- Medical risks associated with late pregnancies
- Ethical considerations in ART practices
- State’s role in regulating reproductive technologies
Procedural Developments
The matter has been adjourned for further hearing and is scheduled to be listed on April 22, 2026, allowing time for:
- Submission of scientific and medical research
- Assistance from the Amicus Curiae
- Amendment of pleadings by the petitioners
Legal Significance
This case is significant as it:
- Tests the constitutional limits of State regulation over reproductive rights
- Examines the balance between individual autonomy and medical safety
- May set a precedent on age-based restrictions in reproductive technologies
- Raises gender equality concerns in ART eligibility norms
Conclusion
The pending decision of the Bombay High Court represents a crucial moment in the evolving jurisprudence on reproductive rights and bodily autonomy in India. While the State seeks to regulate ART services in the interest of health and safety, the petitioners assert their right to motherhood beyond statutory limits. The ultimate resolution will depend on whether the Court finds the age restriction to be a reasonable safeguard grounded in scientific evidence or an arbitrary limitation infringing fundamental rights. At its core, the case underscores a deeper constitutional question:
Can the State impose rigid biological limits on the exercise of reproductive choice, or must such decisions remain within the domain of individual autonomy guided by medical science?
Economic Value of Homemaker’s Work: MP High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case
Introduction
In a significant reaffirmation of the economic and social value of unpaid domestic work, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the contribution of a homemaker cannot be equated with that of an unskilled labourer while determining compensation in motor accident cases. Emphasising the multifaceted and continuous nature of household work, the Court enhanced compensation to ensure “just compensation” under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, thereby recognising the indispensable role played by homemakers within the family structure.
Factual Background
The case arose from an appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act by the family members of the deceased woman, Mamta, challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). The Tribunal had granted compensation of ₹6,97,200 along with interest, assessing the deceased’s monthly income at ₹3,500 due to absence of documentary proof. The appellants contended that the income was grossly undervalued, particularly considering that the deceased was not only engaged in work but was also a homemaker contributing significantly to the household.
Core Legal Issue
Whether the services rendered by a homemaker can be undervalued as unskilled labour in the absence of documentary proof, while determining compensation under motor accident law?Judicial Reasoning
The Bench, led by Justice Hirdesh critically examined the approach of the Tribunal and held that it had erred in treating the deceased’s contribution as equivalent to that of an unskilled worker.
Key Judicial Observation
“A homemaker renders multifarious services to the family, manages the entire household without fixed working hours and without any leave. The economic value of such services… cannot be ignored while determining just compensation.”
The Court emphasised that:
- Homemakers perform continuous and diverse functions essential for family welfare
- Their work lacks formal recognition but carries substantial economic value
- Courts must adopt a realistic and humane approach in assessing such contributions
Reassessment of Income
Rejecting the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹3,500 per month, the Court held that even in the absence of strict documentary evidence, the income should be reasonably assessed.
The Bench observed:
“Her income ought to have been assessed at least at the level of a semiskilled worker under the Minimum Wages Act.”
Accordingly, the Court recalculated the income at ₹5,975 per month (as per applicable minimum wages at the relevant time), thereby ensuring a more just and equitable determination.
Final Decision
The High Court:
- Enhanced total compensation to ₹12,20,720
- Granted an additional amount of ₹5,23,520 over the earlier award
Partly allowed the appeal and modified the Tribunal’s order
Legal Significance
This judgment holds considerable importance as it:
- Reinforces judicial recognition of unpaid domestic labour as economically valuable
- Corrects the tendency to undervalue homemakers in compensation claims
- Aligns with progressive jurisprudence recognising gender justice and dignity of labour
- Ensures that the principle of “just compensation” is interpreted substantively, not mechanically
Broader Jurisprudential Context
Indian courts have increasingly acknowledged the contribution of homemakers in various rulings, recognising that:
- Domestic work contributes to the economic stability of families and society
- Absence of formal wages does not diminish real economic worth
- Compensation law must reflect social realities and gender equity
Conclusion
The decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court marks a significant step towards recognising the invisible yet invaluable labour performed by homemakers. By rejecting a narrow and mechanical assessment of income, the Court has affirmed that justice in compensation law must account for lived realities, not merely documentary evidence. Ultimately, the ruling reinforces a vital legal principle:
Unpaid domestic work is not unskilled labour it is essential labour deserving full legal recognition and equitable valuation.
Withdrawal of Tax Exemptions in Public Interest: Supreme Court Upholds State’s Fiscal Powers
Introduction
In a significant ruling on the scope of State fiscal powers, the Supreme Court of India has held that tax exemptions granted to industries are in the nature of policy concessions and can be withdrawn in public interest. At the same time, the Court emphasised that such withdrawal must adhere to principles of fairness and reasonableness, including providing a reasonable notice period to affected industries. The judgment balances the State’s need for fiscal flexibility with the legitimate expectations of industrial stakeholders.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from notifications issued by the State of Maharashtra in 2000 and 2001 withdrawing electricity duty exemptions earlier granted to captive power producers, including industries such as Reliance Industries Ltd.. These exemptions had originally been introduced in 1994 to encourage industries to generate electricity for their own consumption.
Industries challenged the withdrawal before the Bombay High Court, arguing that they had made substantial investments relying on the State’s promise of continued exemption and that the withdrawal was arbitrary. The High Court accepted this contention and struck down the notifications. Aggrieved, the State of Maharashtra appealed to the Supreme Court.
Core Legal Issue
Whether tax exemptions granted by the State create an enforceable right in favour of industries, and whether such exemptions can be withdrawn in public interest despite the doctrine of promissory estoppel?
Judicial Reasoning
The Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe clarified the legal nature of fiscal exemptions.
Key Judicial Observation
“The very nature of exemption implies that it may be modified or withdrawn if the Government considers such course of action necessary in public interest.”
The Court held that:
- Tax exemptions are policy-based concessions, not vested rights
- Industries cannot claim indefinite continuation of such benefits
- The State must retain flexibility to revise fiscal policy in response to economic needs
Promissory Estoppel and Public Interest
The Court addressed the argument based on promissory estoppel, wherein industries claimed reliance on State assurances.
It held that:
- The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot override public interest
- Fiscal policies must remain adaptable to changing economic and revenue considerations
- Public interest may justify withdrawal even if industries had acted on earlier promises Thus, the Court limited the application of promissory estoppel in fiscal matters.
Requirement of Reasonable Notice
While upholding the State’s power to withdraw exemptions, the Court introduced an important safeguard:
Principle of Fairness
The Court held that:“The principles of fair play demand that such withdrawal should not operate in a manner that causes undue hardship…”
- Withdrawal must be prospective and reasonable
- Industries must be given adequate time to adjust their financial and operational arrangements
In the present case, the Court considered one year as a reasonable notice period.
- Final Decision The Supreme Court:
- Set aside the Bombay High Court’s judgments
- Upheld the validity of the State’s notifications withdrawing the exemption
- Recognised the State’s authority to modify fiscal policy in public interest
- Mandated a reasonable notice period to ensure fairness
Legal Significance
This judgment is significant as it:
- Clarifies that tax exemptions are not enforceable rights
- Limits the scope of promissory estoppel in fiscal matters
- Reinforces the doctrine of public interest supremacy
- Introduces fairness through reasonable notice as a constitutional requirement
- Strengthens State autonomy in economic and fiscal governance
Conceptual Understanding
Nature of Tax Exemptions- Not a right is Concession granted by policy
- Subject to Change, modification, or withdrawal
- Controlled by the Public interest and fiscal needs
- State Interest on Revenue, policy flexibility
- Industry Interest on Stability, investment security
- Court’s Approach on Balance through reasonable notice and fairness
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms a crucial principle of constitutional and economic law that fiscal policy must remain dynamic and responsive to public interest, and cannot be frozen by earlier concessions. At the same time, the Court has ensured that such policy changes are implemented in a fair, non-arbitrary, and reasonable manner. Ultimately, the judgment establishes a balanced legal position:
While industries cannot claim perpetual tax benefits, the State must exercise its fiscal powers with fairness, transparency, and due regard to legitimate expectations.
Dignity of Legal Profession: Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Arbitrary Removal of Advocates by JDA\
Introduction
In a significant ruling reinforcing the dignity and independence of the legal profession, the Rajasthan High Court has held that advocates cannot be treated as mere servants and arbitrarily removed from engagement by authorities. The Court emphasised that engagement and disengagement of lawyers must be governed by fair procedure, reasonable terms, and adherence to principles of natural justice, thereby setting aside the decision of the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) to remove Assistant Advocates.
Factual Background
The case arose from a batch of petitions challenging the removal of several Assistant Advocates engaged by the Jaipur Development Authority for coordinating legal work. The petitioners, including Advocate Pratap Singh, had been engaged for years and were removed without any clear justification.
The engagement terms provided that removal could occur only if the performance of the advocates was found unsatisfactory, based on a report of the competent authority.
However, the petitioners contended that:
- No such performance report was produced
- Their work had been consistently satisfactory
- The removal was arbitrary and influenced by extraneous considerations
Core Legal Issue
Whether the State or its instrumentalities can arbitrarily terminate the engagement of advocates without following due process and contractual conditions?
Judicial Reasoning
The Bench led by Justice Ganesh Ram Meena strongly criticised the arbitrary approach adopted by the authority.
Key Judicial Observation
“The lawyers have some dignity and they cannot be treated like a servant… The engagement or disengagement has to be in accordance with procedure and reasonable terms.”
The Court held that:
- Advocates occupy a distinct professional status requiring respect and fairness
- Engagement cannot be terminated at the whims of authorities
- Any removal must comply with pre-existing terms and conditions
Violation of Natural Justice
- The Court found that:
- No evidence of unsatisfactory performance was produced
- The petitioners’ work had been certified as satisfactory
- Removal was carried out without notice or justification
Thus, the action was held to be arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.
- Limits on State Discretion
While recognising that the State has the authority to appoint lawyers of its choice, the Court clarified that:
- Such discretion is not absolute
- It must be exercised in a reasonable and non-arbitrary manner
- Contractual conditions governing engagement must be strictly followed
Directions Issued by the Court
- The High Court:
- Set aside the orders removing the Assistant Advocates
- Directed continuation of the petitioners in their roles
- Mandated the JDA to frame a comprehensive policy covering:
° Eligibility criteria
° Tenure
° Procedure for engagement and removal
Additionally, the Court urged the State to ensure inclusive representation, including:
- Women lawyers
- SC/ST candidates
- Backward and weaker sections
Legal Significance
This judgment is important as it:
- Reinforces the dignity and independence of the legal profession
- Applies natural justice principles to professional engagements
- Restrains arbitrary exercise of power by State authorities
- Promotes transparency and accountability in legal appointments
- Encourages inclusive representation in legal institutions
Conceptual Understanding
- Key Legal Principles Involved
- Natural Justice: No arbitrary removal without reason or opportunity
- Rule of Law: State actions must be fair and non-arbitrary
- Professional Dignity: Advocates are officers of the court, not employees at will
- Administrative Fairness: Discretion must be guided by rules and procedures
Conclusion
The Rajasthan High Court’s ruling is a strong affirmation of the principle that professional dignity cannot be subordinated to administrative convenience. By striking down arbitrary disengagement, the Court has ensured that advocates are treated with the respect and procedural fairness their role demands. Ultimately, the judgment establishes a vital constitutional and administrative principle:
State power must be exercised with fairness, and even contractual engagements cannot override the dignity and rights of professionals.
Expansion of Digital Content Regulation: Centre Proposes Scrutiny of Online News Without Complaint
Introduction
In a significant move reflecting enhanced State oversight over digital media, the Union Government has proposed amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The proposed changes aim to expand the scope of regulation to include intermediaries and user-generated news content, while also empowering authorities to scrutinise content even in the absence of formal complaints. This development raises important questions concerning freedom of speech, intermediary liability, and regulatory control in the digital space.
Background of the Existing Framework
Under the existing IT Rules, 2021:-
- Part III applies primarily to publishers of news and current affairs content
- It prescribes a Code of Ethics based on journalistic standards and Programme Code
- A three-tier regulatory mechanism exists:
° Self-regulation by publishers
° Self-regulating bodies
° Government oversight through an Inter-Departmental Committee
Intermediaries and individual users were not directly governed under Part III.
Key Proposed Amendments
1. Expansion of ScopeThe amendments propose that:
- Part III will now apply to:
° Intermediaries hosting news content
° Platforms enabling dissemination of such content
° Even non-publisher users posting news and current affairs
This marks a shift from publisher-centric regulation to platform and user-inclusive regulation.
2. Suo Motu Scrutiny by GovernmentThe role of the Inter-Departmental Committee under Rule 14 is expanded to:
- Examine issues beyond formal complaints
- Act on matters directly referred by the Ministry
This enables government-initiated scrutiny of digital content without waiting for grievances.
3. Mandatory Compliance by IntermediariesThe amendments introduce stricter obligations under Part II:
- Intermediaries must comply with:
° Government directions
° Advisories and guidelines
° Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
Such compliance is now linked to due diligence under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, affecting safe harbour protection.
Core Legal Issue
Whether expanding regulatory control over intermediaries and user-generated content, including suo motu scrutiny by the State, is compatible with constitutional guarantees of free speech under Article 19(1)(a)?
Legal and Constitutional Dimensions
1. Freedom of Speech (Article 19(1)(a))- Expansion of oversight may impact digital free expression
- Risk of prior restraint or excessive censorship
- Reasonable Restrictions (Article 19(2))
- Regulation justified on grounds such as:
°Sovereignty and integrity
° Public order
° Decency and morality
3. Intermediary Liability- Increased obligations may dilute safe harbour protection
- Platforms may adopt over-cautious content moderation
Policy Objectives Behind Amendments
The government has justified the amendments as:- Enhancing legal certainty
- Strengthening enforceability of digital regulations
- Ensuring accountability of online content dissemination
- Addressing challenges posed by misinformation and unregulated digital news
Concerns and Criticisms
The proposed amendments raise several concerns:
- Over-regulation: Inclusion of individual users may widen State control excessively
- Chilling Effect: Fear of scrutiny may discourage free expression
- Executive Overreach: Expanded powers of the Ministry without judicial oversight
- Ambiguity: Lack of clear standards for identifying violative content
Broader Implications
The amendments signify a shift towards:
- A more centralised regulatory framework for digital media
- Increased State intervention in online discourse
- Transformation of intermediaries into active regulatory gatekeepers
For platforms:
- Higher compliance burden
- Increased legal risk For users:
- Greater accountability but reduced autonomy
Current Status
The draft amendments were released for public consultation, with stakeholders invited to submit comments by April 14, 2026. The final framework will depend on feedback and subsequent governmental action.
Conclusion
The proposed amendments to the IT Rules represent a critical turning point in India’s digital regulatory landscape. While the objective of ensuring accountability and preventing misuse of online platforms is legitimate, the expansion of State oversight into user-generated content raises important constitutional concerns. Ultimately, the challenge lies in maintaining a delicate balance:
Between regulation and freedom, accountability and autonomy, and governance and constitutional liberty in the digital age.
CONCLUSION
The legal developments of the day collectively underscore a nuanced evolution in Indian jurisprudence, where courts are actively balancing individual rights, professional dignity, and State regulatory powers. Whether it is the question of reproductive autonomy under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, recognition of the economic value of homemakers, or protection of advocates from arbitrary State action, the judiciary has consistently reinforced the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and dignity.
At the same time, the Supreme Court of India has affirmed the State’s authority to recalibrate fiscal policies in public interest, while ensuring procedural safeguards such as reasonable notice. Concurrently, evolving regulatory measures under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 reflect the growing need to address challenges posed by the digital ecosystem, though such regulation must remain consistent with constitutional guarantees, particularly freedom of speech. Ultimately, these developments converge on a central constitutional principle:
Law must evolve to regulate emerging realities while safeguarding dignity, ensuring fairness, and upholding fundamental rights in a democratic society.
