Supreme Court: Vacancies From Resignations under CUSAT Act Must Follow Communal Rotation  ||  Supreme Court: Forest Land Cannot Be Leased or Used For Agriculture Without Centre’s Approval  ||  Supreme Court: Gravity of Offence and Accused’s Role Must Guide Suspension of Sentence under CrPC  ||  Supreme Court: Arbitral Awards Cannot be Set Aside For Mere Legal Errors or Misreading of Evidence  ||  SC Acknowledges Child Trafficking as a Grave Reality and Issues Guidelines to Assess Victim Evidence  ||  Allahabad HC: When Parties Extend an Agreement by Conduct, The Arbitration Clause Extends Too  ||  Supreme Court: Issues of Party Capacity and Maintainability Must Be Decided by Arbitral Tribunal  ||  Supreme Court: Omissions in Chief Examination Can Be Rectified During Cross-Examination  ||  Supreme Court: Items Given by Accused to Police Are Not Section 27 Recoveries under Evidence Act  ||  Gujarat High Court: Waqf Institutions Must Pay Court Fees When Filing Disputes in State Tribunal    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved