SABU MATHEW GEORGE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel along with Ms. Ninni Susan Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General of India along with Ms. Binu Tamta, learned counsel for the Union of India, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel along with Ms. Ruby Ahuja, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.5.

(2.) The present litigation projects, as the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 would comprehend, a dilemma for them, although we are unable to perceive any such dilemma. Since 2001, this Court has expressed its concern with regard to reduction of sex ratio in this country. It has gone to the extent of stating that when there is decrease in sex ratio, it is a disaster signal to the mankind. In the last decision, that is, Voluntary Health Association of Punjab Vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 10 SCC 265, the Court had issued number of guidelines. In the said case, it has been observed thus:-

(3.) The present writ petition was filed in 2008 by the petitioner, a doctor in the field of Public Health and Nutrition, expressing his concern about the modus operandi adopted by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 to act in detriment to the fundamental conception of balancing of sex ratio by entertaining advertisements, either directly or indirectly or as alleged, in engaging themselves in violation of Sec. 22 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for brevity, 'the 1994 Act'). Times without number, this Court has dwelt upon how to curb the said malady. In pursuance of our orders dated 5th July, 2016 and 25th July, 2016, an affidavit was filed by the competent authority of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), Government of India.