Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Husband Failed to Explain Wife’s Death in Matrimonial Home  ||  Supreme Court: Crime Scene Re-Enactment Does Not Always Violate Right Against Self-Incrimination  ||  Supreme Court: Cognizance Taken Without Hearing Accused under BNSS Section 223 is Void Ab Initio  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Will in Sister’s Favour, Says Excluding Natural Heirs is Not Suspicious  ||  Delhi HC: Absence of Public Witnesses and Videography in NDPS Recovery Relevant for Bail Decisions  ||  Raj HC Initiates Suo Motu Cognizance Over Severe Water Crisis in Jodhpur, Issues Interim Directions  ||  Del HC: Courts Cannot Direct, Monitor Inquiry Into Police Delay in Investigation After Bail Decision  ||  Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants    

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