2013 INSC 0031
Voluntary Health Association of Punjab
v.
Union of India & Others
(Supreme Court Of India)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.P. RADHAKRISHNAN HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 349 Of 2006 | 08-01-2013

1. The affidavit of the Union of India be taken on record. We have heard
learned counsel on either side.

2. We are of the considered view that the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal
Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (57 of 1994) is
not being properly implemented by the various States and Union Territories in
its true letter and spirit to achieve the objects and reasons for which the Act has
been enacted. The Act clearly provides for:

"1. prohibition of the misuse of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for
determination of sex of foetus, leading to female foeticide;

2. prohibition of advertisement of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for detection
or determination of sex;

3. permission and regulation of the use of pre-natal diagnostic technique for the
purpose of detection of specific genetic abnormalities or disorders;

4. permitting the use of such techniques only under certain conditions by the
registered institutions; and

5. punishment for violation of the provisions of the Act."

1                                                           SpotLaw
3. Section 17(1) of the Act empowers the Central Government to appoint, by
notification in the Official Gazette, one or more appropriate authorities for each
of the Union Territories for the purpose of this Act and sub-section (2) of
Section 17 empowers the State Government to appoint one or more appropriate
authorities for the whole or part of the State for the purpose of implementation
of this Act having regard to the intensity of the problem of pre-natal sex
determination leading to female foeticide. Section 17, therefore, puts an
obligation on the Central Government, the State Governments and Union
Territories to appoint appropriate authorities for the proper implementation of
the Act. We are not in a position to know whether all the States and Union
Territories have constituted appropriate authorities under the Act and whether
they are effectively functioning. For the time being we are inclined to examine
the situations which exist in the States of Punjab, Haryana, NCT of Delhi,
Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Maharashtra, where the statistics made
available would show a drastic reduction in female child sex ratio.

4. We notice that though some of the States have taken some steps against the
violators, not a single case of prosecution has been reported from any State,
which shows that the authorities are very callous in implementing the provisions
of the Act. This Court had earlier given various directions in its judgment
pronounced in Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes (CEHAT) v.
Union of India (2003) 8 SCC 398). Those directions also are yet to be
implemented.

5. In such circumstances, we direct the Health Securities of all the
abovementioned States to remain present in this Court on the next date of
hearing so as to apprise the Court of the steps they have taken to implement the
provisions of the Act. They will also make available the latest statistics of the
number of cases booked for violation of the provisions of the Act, prosecution
launched and how many ended in conviction.

6. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to communicate this order to the Chief
Secretaries of the respective States forthwith. List on 12-2-2013. In the
meantime, it is open to the learned counsel appearing for the respective States to
file affidavits explaining steps they have taken for the effective implementation
of the provisions of the Act.

2  SpotLaw
Office Report filed by Registry of Supreme Court

7. It is submitted for the kind information of the Hon'ble Court that certified
copy of the record of proceedings dated 8-1-2013 was issued to all the parties
concerned for their compliance and necessary action. It is further submitted that
in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the following documents have been filed so
far:

S.No.DocumentsOn behalf of States/UTsFiled onFiled by Advocates.

1.Additional affidavitUnion of India9-1-2013Ms. Sushma Suri

2.Additional AffidavitAndhra Pradesh21-1-2013Mr. D. Mahesh Babu

3.AffidavitRajasthan5-2-2013Mr. Irshad Ahmad

4.Short AffidavitUttar Pradesh7-2-2013Mr. Abhist Kumar

5.Compliance affidavitHaryana7-2-2013Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta

6.Status reportGovt. of NCT, Delhi8-2-2013Mr. D.S. Mahra

7.AffidavitPunjab8-2-2013Mr. Kuldip Singh

8.Counter-Affidavit (with the permission of the Hon'ble Court)Maharashtra11-
2-2013Ms. Asha G. Nair

The documents of Sl.Nos.1, 2, 6 and 8 abovementioned are placed in a separate
volume and Sl.Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 stand included in the paper books. It is
submitted that no documents on behalf of State of Bihar has been filed so far.

3                                                                 SpotLaw
The writ petition along with the application abovementioned is listed before the
Hon'ble Court with this office report for orders.

4  SpotLaw