Female foeticide 'ugly manifestation' of discrimination against women, girl child: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said discrimination against women and particularly the girl child was still prevalent across several parts of the country and female foeticide is a crude manifestation of such a social malady.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations and rejected a plea by a Gurugram-based radiologist for offences under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) (PCPNDT) Act, 1994.

The court pointed out that the Parliament has stepped in not only outlawing sex determination and selection but also prohibiting all related pre-conception and pre-natal techniques and procedures, making it mandatory to maintain the relevant record in the prescribed format.

In the case, the court found, prima facie it has come on record that appellant Dr Naresh Kumar Garg had conducted ultrasonography on the pregnant woman.

“Whether or not he has maintained the record as required under the law in addition to non-disclosure of the sex of the foetus is a matter for trial. Therefore, it is not a case where the trial should be nipped in the bud,” the bench said.

The court said a skewed sex ratio is likely to lead to greater incidences of violence against women and increase in practices of trafficking, bride-buying etc.

"It is an effort to save the girl child. The focus of the PCPNDT Act is to protect the right to life of the girl child under Article 21 of the Constitution," the bench said.

The bench highlighted the legislation has been enacted in India with a view to prevent such crime and to align with the global perspective for a discrimination-free world.

While declining to interfere with an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court's allowing prosecution, the court, however, found fault with the procedure adopted in the raid conducted against the radiologist.

The court noted, the civil surgeon is the chairperson of the district appropriate authority under the PCPNDT Act but the communication issued by him does not indicate any decision being taken collectively by the authority to conduct a raid on the premises of the appellant.

Although the search may be vitiated but the evidence collected in the course of the search in the form of the seized record etc cannot be discarded altogether, like the baby with the bath water, the bench opined.