HELP WELFARE GROUP SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to implement the provisions of the Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (in short 'the Act') in their true letter and spirit. Infact, considerable water has flowed since the filing of the petition and thus, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he confines the relief to the proper implementation of Section 17(3)(b) and Section 17(5) of the said Act. The said Act was brought into force for prohibition of sex selection before or after conception and thus, consequently for regulation of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for the purposes of detecting genetic abnormalities or metabolic disorders or chromosomal abnormalities or certain congenital malformations or sex-linked disorders as also for the prevention of their misuse for sex determination leading to female foeticide as set out in the objects, and reasons. Unfortunately, there is vast malpractice prevalent in the State of Haryana of using this technique for finding out the sex of the unborn child resulting in female foeticide and disturbing the very balance of male-female ratio.

(2.) In order to enforce the provisions of the said-Act, Chapter-V enlists the Appropriate Authority and the Advisory Committee. Section 17(1) to (3) and (5), which are relevant for our purposes read as under:-

(3.) Insofar as the State Government is concerned, Sub-section(2) of Section 17 envisages the appointment of Appropriate Authorities for the whole or part of the State by notification in the official gazette. Sub-section(3) prescribes as to who would be appropriate authorities whether they are appointed by the Central Government under Sub-section(1) or by the State Government under Sub-section(2). Clauses(a) and (b) of Sub-section(3) make a distinction between the appointment of appropriate authorities for the whole of the State or the Union Territory and for any part of the State or Union Territory. Under clause(a) of Sub-section(3) when it is for the whole of the State or the Union Territory, it has to be three member body consisting of the officer of or above the rank of Joint Director of Health and Family Welfare as Chairperson with an eminent woman representing women's organization as a Member as also officer of the Law department of the State or the Union Territory concerned. Clause (b) has not repeated what clause (a) states, but qualifies effectively sub-para. (i) of clause (a) of Sub-section(3) by stating that the officer need not be, who has to act as Chairperson, rank of Joint Director of Health and Family Welfare, but of such rank as the State Government may deem fit. Infact, the expression used is for both State Government and Central Government.