'Female foeticide a moral blight': K'taka HC refuses to quash proceedings against three in Ramanagara

Bengaluru: Female foeticide is not merely a statutory offence, it is a moral blight and a constitutional affront, the Karnataka High Court has observed while refusing to quash proceedings against three people, including a radiologist working in government hospital in Ramanagara.

The other two accused, a couple from Byrapatna, are allegedly the agents who bring in patients for determination of sex and consequential acts.

The couple challenged the proceedings initiated under Section 4 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, and BNS Sections 3 (5) and 91.

The radiologist, who did the scanning procedure, challenged the case for an offence punishable under Section 23 of the Pre-conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act.

The complaint filed by the District Health and Family Welfare Officer, stated that the husband and the wife, already parents of two female children, wanted to ascertain the sex of their unborn third child.

After the scanning at Ramanagara district hospital, the agents, including the couple from Byrapatna, disclosed that the foetus was female. After monetary negotiations, the pregnant woman was administered with certain prohibited medication (Misoprostol 200 mg) and was sent home.

The pregnant woman suffered profuse bleeding the very night, leading to the death of the foetus.

It was argued on behalf of the radiologist that he had only conducted a scan which is not prohibited under the Act.

The couple claimed that there was no material against them. On the other hand, the state government submitted that there is a coterie operating in the districts of Ramanagara and Channapatna where sex determination leading to medical termination of pregnancy is rampant.

After perusing the complaint and the proceedings before the court while taking cognizance of the offence, Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that each accused is alleged to have played a distinct yet independent role, some as facilitators, some as intermediaries and some as medical professionals, forming a seamless continuum of culpability.

“The petitioners/accused Nos 4 and 5 (couple from Byrapatna) were not portrayed as passive or peripheral figures; they allegedly were the very conduits through whom patients were procured and channelled for the purpose of sex determination and its inevitable corollary - sex-selective termination. The complaint alleged that, upon disclosure that the foetus was female, monetary negotiations ensued, prohibitory medication was administered, and the pregnant woman was sent back, only to suffer profuse bleeding the very same night, leading to the death of the foetus," Justice Nagaprasanna said.

Justice Nagaprasanna said, "At this incipient stage, it would be wholly impressible to dissect the episode in isolation or to exonerate individual protagonists by compartmentalising their roles. The law does not countenance such piecemeal absolution where the allegations disclose a concerted and cumulative design."

The court further said, “More importantly, this Court cannot be oblivious to the larger societal malaise that forms the backdrop of the present case. Female foeticide is not merely a statutory offence; it is a moral blight and a constitutional affront. The apex court has repeatedly underscored that leniency, at the threshold in such matters, risks rendering the law a dead letter and emboldening those who trade in gender discrimination under the cloak of medical expertise.”