Ker. HC: Independent Evidence of Accomplice Sufficient in Itself to Sustain Conviction  ||  Del HC: Nodal Authority Appointed for Drafting Procedure to Prevent Tree Felling in North Campus, DU  ||  Ker. HC: Baseless Apprehensions That Lawyer Will Act Illegally Should Not be Made by Courts  ||  Mobile e-Sewa Kendra on Bharat Benz Minibus Launched by Kerala High Court  ||  Kar. HC: Service Charge Cap on App-Based Auto Rides Upheld  ||  Plea by Moti Mahal in Delhi High Court for Cancellation of Daryaganj Restaurant’s Trademark  ||  Allahabad HC: Police Officials Duty Bound to Produce Accused Before Court  ||  Kerala High Court: Court Granting Bail Can Cancel it, if Conditions are Violated  ||  Cal HC: Death to be Presumed of Employee Untraceable for 7 Years, Heirs Entitled to Terminal Benefit  ||  Bom. HC: One-Week Bail Granted to Life Convict to Appear in Entrance Test    

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


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved