New Delhi, April 16 -- The Delhi High Court permitted the extraction and cryopreservation of sperm of an Indian Army soldier in a persistent vegetative state, holding that his prior consent to undergo IVF treatment with his wife amounted to valid consent under the law. Citing "Srimad Bhagavatam", a bench of justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, in a verdict released on Wednesday, observed that the right to reproductive autonomy is a fundamental right and that the law- Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021-must be interpreted in a manner that advances, rather than restricts, this right. "Section 22 of the ART Act, thus, provides the mere procedure to address the broader, more fundamental problem, which is being faced by the citizens. It is trite law, that procedure is indeed the handmaiden of justice. Non-compliance with the bare, strict, text of a procedural provision, destroying the substantive intent of the legislation ought not to be countenanced. The right to reproductive autonomy, it must be remembered, is a fundamental right," the bench said in its April 13 verdict. It said, "Having considered the overall prospectus of facts and situation, it is directed that the petitioner's husband action and his consent of joining the IVF treatment be treated to be sufficient compliance for the purposes of Section 22 of the ART Act." The court passed the order in a petition filed by the soldier's wife seeking the extraction and cryopreservation of her husband's sperm to undergo assisted reproductive technology (IVF), in furtherance of the couple's mutual decision to conceive a child. In the present case, the couple married in March 2017 and opted for IVF in June 2023. However, in July 2025, the husband, while posted at Dhoodhganga in Jammu and Kashmir, suffered a fall during patrol in an operational area, resulting in a severe traumatic brain injury that left him in a persistent vegetative state. In her petition, the woman contended that there was presently no reasonable likelihood or foreseeable scope of neurological recovery in the near future. The Centre's counsel opposed the petition, contending that there was no "explicit written consent" from the man as required under Section 22 of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. The said provision, to be sure, bars the transfer of a cryopreserved human embryo without written consent. In its 10-page order, the court observed that the woman and her husband had voluntarily opted for IVF, had already undertaken prAssembly receives another hoax bomb threat e-mail, Speaker shoots off letter to commissionerocedures in furtherance of that decision and held that this clearly indicated the husband's consent to undergo IVF....