Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Before we address the  lis  that has arisen in the present Writ Petition and the orders passed on various occasions, it is necessary to state here that the 1994 Act was enacted by the Parliament being conscious of the increase of female foeticides and   resultant   imbalance   of   sex   ratio   in   the   country.     The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 1994 Act reads as follows:­ “Statement of Objects and Reasons   It is proposed to prohibit pre­natal diagnostic techniques   for   determination   of   sex   of   the   foetus leading   to   female   foeticide.   Such   abuse   of techniques is discriminatory against the female sex and   affects   the   dignity   and   status   of   women.   A legislation   is   required   to   regulate   the   use   of   such techniques and to provide deterrent punishment to stop such inhuman act.

4. At   this   juncture,   we   may   profitably   reproduce   the “Introduction” to the 1994 Act:­ “In   the   recent   past   Pre­natal   Diagnostic   Centres sprang up in the urban areas of the country using pre­natal diagnostic techniques for determination of sex of the foetus. Such centres became very popular and   their   growth   was   tremendous   as   the   female child is not welcomed with open arms in most of the Indian   families.   The   result   was   that   such   centres became   centres   of  female  foeticide.  Such   abuse of the technique is against the female sex and affects the   dignity   and   status   of   women.   Various Organisations working for the welfare and uplift of the   women   raised   their   heads   against   such   an abuse.   It was considered necessary to bring out a legislation   to   regulate   the   use   of,   and   to   provide deterrent  punishment to stop  the  misuse of, such techniques. The matter was discussed in Parliament and   the   Pre­natal   Diagnostic   Techniques (Regulation   and   Prevention   of   Misuse)   Bill,   1991 was   introduced in the Lok Sabha. The Lok Sabha after discussions adopted a motion for reference of the   said   Bill   to   a   Joint   Committee   of   both   the Houses of Parliament in September, 1991. The Joint Committee presented its report in December, 1992 and   on   the   basis   of   the   recommendations   of   the Committee,   the   Bill   was   reintroduced   in   the Parliament.” 

9. The   Court,   after   dwelling   upon   many   an   aspect, proceeded   to   issue   certain   directions.     In   the   concurring opinion, direction No. 9.8 was elaborated and in that context, the opinion stated:­  “14.  Female   foeticide   has   its   roots   in   the   social thinking   which   is   fundamentally   based   on   certain erroneous   notions,   egocentric   traditions,   perverted perception   of   societal   norms   and   obsession   with ideas   which   are   totally   individualistic   sans   the collective   good.   All   involved   in   female   foeticide

14. Speaking about the constitutional status of women and the brazed practice of sex identification and female foeticide, the Court stated:­  “45.  Before   parting   with   the   case,   let   it   be   stated with   certitude   and   without   allowing   any   room   for any   kind   of   equivocation   or   ambiguity,   the perception   of   any   individual   or   group   or organisation   or   system   treating   a   woman   with inequity,   indignity,   inequality   or   any   kind   of discrimination   is   constitutionally   impermissible. The historical perception has to be given a prompt burial. Female foeticide is conceived by the society that   definitely   includes   the   parents   because   of unethical perception of life and nonchalant attitude towards   law.   The   society   that   treats   man   and woman with equal dignity shows the reflections of a progressive   and   civilised   society.   To   think   that   a woman should think what a man or a society wants her   to   think   tantamounts   to   slaughtering   her choice,   and   definitely   a   humiliating   act.   When freedom   of   free   choice   is   allowed   within constitutional   and   statutory   parameters,   others cannot determine the norms as that would amount to acting in derogation of law. Decrease in the sex ratio is a sign of colossal calamity and it cannot be allowed to happen. Concrete steps have to be taken to increase the same so that invited social disasters do not befall on the society. The present generation is   expected   to   be   responsible   to   the   posterity   and not to take such steps to sterilise the birth rate in violation   of   law.  The  societal   perception  has  to  be metamorphosed having respect to legal postulates.”