Supreme Court Rebukes RBI for Remaining a Bystander as YES Bank Operated Clandestinely  ||  Supreme Court: Lower Fresh Bids Alone Cannot Justify Cancellation of an Auction  ||  Supreme Court Directs Delhi Police to Produce Section 163 BNSS Orders and Preserve CCTV Footage  ||  Supreme Court Affirms Menstrual Hygiene as a Fundamental Right, Warns States of Contempt  ||  Supreme Court Flags AI-Generated Fake Judgments Submitted in a Party’s Case Compilation  ||  Karnataka High Court: Vijay Mallya’s Flamboyant Lifestyle Hinders Settlement of Bank Claims  ||  Delhi High Court: Women can be Booked for Gang Rape without Physically Committing it  ||  Delhi High Court: Litigants Must Track Their Cases and Cannot Blame Lawyers for Their Own Inaction  ||  Allahabad High Court: Contract Workers Must Prove Work Parity With Regular Staff for Equal Pay  ||  Allahabad High Court Directs UP Trial Courts to Decide Maintenance Execution Cases Within Six Months    

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