Introduction:
The Bombay High Court recently addressed a batch of petitions challenging the quashing of an order by an Additional Sessions Judge under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act). The case involved a Kirtankar, a public speaker, who allegedly propagated techniques for conceiving a male child during a religious discourse. The court examined whether the statements made constituted an offense under the PCPNDT Act and determined that the communication in the religious discourse qualified as an advertisement. This blog explores the court's ruling and its implications for the trial.
Background:
The respondent, a Kirtankar with influence in rural and semi-urban areas, addressed a gathering where he shared extracts from religious and Ayurvedic books, claiming they provided techniques for conceiving a male child. He asserted that sexual relations on even dates would result in a male child, while odd dates would lead to a female child. Additionally, he mentioned that the position of the fetus in the womb after six months determined its gender. A complaint was filed, alleging that the respondent propagated sex selection and violated the provisions of the PCPNDT Act.
The Trial and Revision:
The magistrate found that the respondent's actions fell under the definition of "sex selection" and issued a process against him. However, the Sessions Judge, in a criminal revision, rejected the allegations, stating that the statements made during the religious discourse did not constitute the propagation of sex selection. The revision was allowed, and the order of process issuance was quashed.
The High Court's Ruling:
The Bombay High Court reviewed the case and determined that the Sessions Judge's findings were erroneous. The court acknowledged that no modern or established technique was propagated in this instance. Nonetheless, the court held that the communication in the religious discourse qualified as an advertisement under the PCPNDT Act. It emphasized that the term "advertisement propagation" should be interpreted broadly and not limited to clinical diagnostic centers or modern techniques. The court noted that the respondent not only advertised but also claimed the information to be scientifically sound and legally valid.
Implications and Conclusion:
The court concluded that there was sufficient material to establish a prima facie case against the respondent and ordered the trial court to proceed with the trial. However, it cautioned against equating the dissemination of knowledge in books for academic purposes with the acts alleged in this case. The court dismissed one petition for lack of locus standi, allowed other petitions, and restored the trial court's order. The court also directed the trial court to conduct the trial without being influenced by the observations made in this matter.
The Bombay High Court's decision to proceed with the trial for the propagation of sex selection in a religious discourse signifies the judiciary's commitment to combating harmful practices. It highlights the need to critically evaluate Indian rituals and beliefs, particularly when they conflict with legal frameworks designed to protect individual rights and promote social progress. By encouraging education, awareness, and legal reforms, it is possible to foster a society that respects cultural heritage while upholding principles of equality and justice. Only through a comprehensive and critical examination of our beliefs can we create a more inclusive and harmonious future for all.
Comments
Post a Comment