Allahabad HC: Divorce on Desertion Ground Does Not Bar Wife’s Maintenance Claim U/S 125 CrPC  ||  Allahabad HC: Divorce on Desertion Ground Does Not Bar Wife’s Maintenance Claim U/S 125 CrPC  ||  Bombay HC on Nicotine Pouch Ban: Duty-Free Shops Must Comply with Domestic Laws  ||  SEBI Settles Hindenburg-linked Disclosure Cases Involving Five Adani Firms for Rs. 1.5 Crore  ||  Kerala High Court: Navy Court-Martial Proceedings Can Be Prosecuted by Investigating Officer  ||  Bombay HC: Arrest is Drastic; ED Cannot Halt Section 50 Questioning and Arrest on Same Material  ||  Supreme Court Proposes Unified Platform for Investment of Funds Deposited by Litigants  ||  Supreme Court: Courts Can Interfere When Tender Acceptance Violates NIT Conditions  ||  SC: Recovery of Tainted Money Without Proof of Bribe Demand Insufficient for Conviction  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Production of Original Deed Not a Ground to Discharge Accused    

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