SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, CJI., A.M. KHANWILKAR, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
Dr. Sabu Mathew George - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 341 of 2008
Decided On : 13-12-2017
Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques - The Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - Section 22, Section 23, Section 26 - The judgment discusses the provisions of the 1994 Act, particularly Section 22, which prohibits advertisement relating to preconception and prenatal determination of sex and provides punishment for contravention. The court emphasizes the need for strict compliance with the Act and directs the search engines to take necessary action to remove offending material.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking directions for the effective implementation of the provisions of The Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The petitioner sought to block websites and stop promotion of sex selection, citing violation of the Act. The court issued various directions to ensure compliance with the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the search engines have the potential to take necessary action to remove offending material and emphasized the need for strict compliance with the 1994 Act. The court directed the Nodal Agency and the Expert Committee to hold a meeting with the search engine representatives to find a solution to ensure compliance with the Act.
Issues: The main issue was the effective implementation of the provisions of The Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, particularly in relation to the advertisement of prenatal determination of sex and sex selection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for strict compliance with the 1994 Act and directed the search engines to take necessary action to remove offending material. The court also directed the Nodal Agency and the Expert Committee to hold a meeting with the search engine representatives to find a solution to ensure compliance with the Act.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of with the direction for the Nodal Agency and the Expert Committee to hold a meeting with the search engine representatives to find a solution to ensure compliance with the Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh writ petition if there would be any further grievance.
JUDGMENT :
Dipak Misra, CJI.
The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, a public spirited person, for issue of necessary directions for the effective implementation of provisions of The Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for brevity, “the 1994 Act”). The reliefs sought in the Writ Petition are to command the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Secretary, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology with the help of its agencies such as Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) to block all such websites, including that of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5, namely, Google India, Yahoo ! India and Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd. and to stop all forms of promotion of sex selection such as advertisement on their websites as these violate the provisions of the 1994 Act, and further to issue of a writ of mandamus to the said respondents to post the directions of this Court on the front page of their search engines so that there is widespread public awareness and further constitute a separate monitoring committee of the CERT and civil society members to check against any future violations.
2. Before we address the lis that has arisen in the present Writ Petition and the orders passed on various occasions, it is necessary to state here that the 1994 Act was enacted by the Parliament being conscious of the increase of female foeticides and resultant imbalance of sex ratio in the country. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 1994 Act reads as follows:-
“Statement of Objects and Reasons
It is proposed to prohibit prenatal diagnostic techniques for determination of sex of the foetus leading to female foeticide. Such abuse of techniques is discriminatory against the female sex and affects the dignity and status of women. A legislation is required to regulate the use of such techniques and to provide deterrent punishment to stop such inhuman act.
The Bill, inter alia, provides for:
(i) prohibition of the misuse of prenatal diagnostic techniques for determination of sex of foetus, leading to female foeticide;
(ii) prohibition of advertisement of prenatal diagnostic techniques for detection or determination of sex;
(iii) permission and regulation of the use of prenatal diagnostic techniques for the purpose of detection of specific genetic abnormalities or disorders;
(iv) permitting the use of such techniques only under certain conditions by the registered institutions; and
(v) punishment for violation of the provisions of the proposed legislation.”
3. Be it noted, initially the legislation was named as the Prenatal Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 and by Section 3 of the Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Amendment Act, 2002 the nomenclature of the 1994 Act has been amended which now stands as The Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 with effect from 1.1.1996. Preamble to the 1994 Act reads as follows:
“An Act to provide for the prohibition of sex selection, before or after conception, and for regulation of prenatal diagnostic techniques for the purposes of detecting genetic abnormalities or metabolic disorders or chromosomal abnormalities or certain congenital malformations or sexlinked disorders and for the prevention of their misuse for sex determination leading to female foeticide and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
4. At this juncture, we may profitably reproduce the “Introduction” to the 1994 Act:
“In the recent past Prenatal Diagnostic Centres sprang up in the urban areas of the country using prenatal diagnostic techniques for determination of sex of the foetus. Such centres became very popular and their growth was tremendous as the female child is not welcomed with open arms in most of the Indian families. The result was that such centres became centres of female foeticide. Such abuse
Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka
Health and Allied Themes (CEHAT) v. Union of India
Vikas Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & others
Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of India and others
Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of India and others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.