Supreme Court Issues Directions to Speed Up MACT Claims Amid Six-Year Average Pendency  ||  Supreme Court: Sex Selection Practices Continues Due to Preference For Male Children  ||  Supreme Court: Injury From a Fallen Tree is Not a Motor Accident for MACT Claims  ||  Madras HC: Recent Tamil Nadu Elections Reflect Voting Beyond Caste and Community Considerations  ||  Supreme Court: Children Should Not Undergo Psychological Tests in Custody Cases Unless Necessary  ||  Jharkhand HC: Lokayukta Cannot Delegate Core Adjudicatory Powers Even in Case Against Brother  ||  Ker HC: Complainant Can Invoke Presumptions After Proving Transaction, Cheque Execution Convincingly  ||  Supreme Court Cancels SARFAESI Auction Sale After 16 Years Due to a 5-Day Payment Delay  ||  Jhar HC Orders 2-Month Probe Deadline, DGP Monitoring to Overhaul Sexual Violence Response in State  ||  Delhi HC: Social Media Cannot Undermine Judiciary; Intermediaries Must Act Without Court Orders    

Indian Radiological and Imaging Association and ors. v. Union of India and anr. - (High Court of Delhi) (17 Feb 2016)

Court cleans up pre-natal sex determination legislation

Human Rights

Section 2(p) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 defining a Sonologist or Imaging Specialist was struck down by the Delhi High Court for including persons possessing a postgraduate qualification in ultrasonography or imaging techniques. Under Section 2(p) of the Act, no qualifications were recognised by the Medical Council of India for a ‘Sonologist’ or ‘Imaging Specialist’ and even the Act did not empower statutory bodies constituted under the Act or the Central Government to devise and coin new qualification.

The Court opined that for the purposes of prevention of sex determination through ultrasound machines or other radiological techniques, it did not matter if the same were operated by an MBBS graduate or an MD radiologist. An MBBS graduate was sufficiently qualified to be sensitized to the “fatal consequence of female foeticide as a result of sex determination or the morality behind the same.” There is no requirement for the person to undergo further training as a ‘Doctor’. The Court lamented the legislation’s emphasis on “mammoth paper work of registration of ultrasound machines” even in non-prenatal diagnosis, leaving little time to identify ultrasound machines that were actually used for sex determination.

Relevant : Section 2 Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994

Tags : PRE-NATAL   SEX DETERMINATION   ULTRASOUND   QUALIFICATIONS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved