Introduction:
In a groundbreaking challenge that could reshape reproductive rights in India, the Kerala High Court is hearing a case that questions whether the country’s assisted reproductive technology framework is equipped to recognize transgender individuals as prospective parents. The petition, filed by a 28-year-old trans man, has thrust into the spotlight the glaring exclusions within the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021.
The Petitioner’s Story
The petitioner asked KIMS Fertility Centre in Thiruvananthapuram to cryopreserve his eggs before undergoing gender-affirming surgery. The routine medical procedure was now constitutional war since the private hospital was too narrow to accommodate him. The trans man moved to the Kerala High Court on February 11, 2025, with Justice CS Dias taking up the case.
Legal Gaps in the ART Act, 2021
The basic question that the petitioner raises as part of this case is whether it is discriminatory to say that transgender individuals are entitled to build family based upon the limited definition of ART Act only limited to “married couples” of which a man and woman and single woman are both legally equal members. By excluded transgender people, the law disregards constitutional guarantees of rights to life and the right to choose reproductive choices under Articles 14, 15, 21.
Government’s Stand
The Union government’s response, filed just days ago, has been unequivocal. In a counter-affidavit submitted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Centre stated that transgender persons are not included in the ART Act’s legal framework. The government argued that cryopreservation of oocytes is an ART service. They said this service cannot be provided to a trans man, as the Act clearly excludes single men and transgender individuals from eligibility.
The Legal Trap
This position of the government creates a peculiar legal trap. The petitioner is not allowed access to ART services under the current law. In addition, the Surrogacy Regulation Act 2021 excludes transgender people from the possibility of reaching parenthood, closing off a potential avenue to parenthood. Even adoption laws speak of transgender people, but neither the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 or the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 concerned transgender parents as prospective parents.
Jurisprudential Context
The court concludes an important moment in India‘s new legal approach to transgender rights. The landmark 2014 NALSA decision argued that gender recognition was integral to dignity and personal freedom. The Legislature created the Transgender Peoples (Protection of Rights) Act to protect everyone and girls who are disabled. But when it comes to reproductive autonomy, a right that the Supreme Court affirmed for females, the law disappears silent.
Legal experts point out that the ART Act contradicts several Supreme Court precedents. The Navtej Singh Johar judgment decriminalized homosexuality and affirmed LGBTQ+ rights. Multiple judgments have established that denying benefits based solely on sexual orientation or gender identity is unconstitutional. The current case forces courts to reconcile these progressive judgments with legislation that appears stuck in a binary understanding of gender and family.
What the Petitioner Seeks
The petitioner asks the court to compel the court to find discriminatory provisions in the ART Act violated of constitutional rights and use the terms “woman” and “man” to mean trans women and trans men, respectively. This is a request that not only has legality but also lived realities: transgender people who want to retain fertility at the time of medical transition must have the same access to healthcare as anyone else.
Current Status and Future Implications
The Department of Justice has issued notices to KIMS hospital and government and the matter will be referred for hearing on February 18. The court’s ruling could have potentially profound implications, perhaps even spurring an idea of a legislative rethink of how India defines parenthood and family in the 21st century.
Conclusion: Beyond One Individual
As India addresses this question, one thing becomes clear: laws designed to protect rights and regulate technology cannot be exclusion instruments. The reproductive choices of transgender individuals deserve the same legal protection and social respect as other people. That is to be seen, but it is not clear whether India’s legal system is ready to accept the reality of this reality, but the Kerala High Court does now have an opportunity to bring the law to line with constitutional principles and human dignity.
The case represents more than one individual’s fight to preserve fertility—it’s a test of whether India’s progressive judgments on transgender rights translate into meaningful access to fundamental life choices, including the deeply personal decision to become a parent.
ABOUT: Swapnil Mishra is a student at The Legal School and a law graduate of LNCT University in Bhopal. studies corporate and commercial law with a strong interest. Through his writing, he hopes to simplify, make practical, and make difficult legal concepts understandable. has experience in paralegal work, contract preparation, and legal research.