Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

Saksham Foundation Charitable Society v. Union of India - (High Court of Allahabad) (22 Feb 2016)

Preventing sex-selective abortions

MANU/UP/2097/2014

Human Rights

1994 saw the introduction of two pieces of legislation that hoped to stem the practice of terminating pregnancies mid-term if the child to be born was female. These were the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and the Pre-natal Diagnostic (Techniques Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994. Their objectives were twofold: preventing pre-natal sex determination leading to female foeticide, of course, but also to not hinder diagnosis for the purpose of detecting genetic or metabolic disorders or other abnormalities. Challenges over the years to the validity of the Acts, largely dispelled by courts, have coloured themselves in the most inventive of suasions. In 2005, for instance, the Bombay High Court dismissed a petition by a married couple that claimed the Sex Selection Act of 1994 contrary to their personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It held that “the right to life or personal liberty cannot be expanded to mean that the right of personal liberty includes the personal liberty to determine the sex of a child which may come into existence”. Another much more recent claim at the Allahabad High Court went so far as to claim the Acts impinging on the rights of the unborn child under Article 21. Moreover, a doctor in the know of the sex of the unborn child only had the moral duty to not disclose the same, permitting abortion of the foetus by the ‘unaware’ parents. The petition was dismissed; however, the court refrained from expressing opinion on legislative policy, finding itself not “justified in interfering with the wisdom of Parliament in implementing a legislative policy in a particular manner.”

Relevant : Amy Antoinette Mcgregor & Anr. v. Directorate of Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. MANU/DE/3898/2013 Vijay Sharma & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. MANU/MH/0668/2007 Vinod Soni and Anr. vs. Union of India (UOI) MANU/MH/0293/2005 Article 21 Constitution of India Act

Section 5 PNDT Act, 1994

Tags : SEX SELECTION   CONSTITUTIONALITY   ULTRASOUND  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved