CENTRE FOR ENQUIRY INTO HEALTH AND ALLIED THEMES (CEHAT) AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 10-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

CENTRE FOR ENQUIRY INTO HEALTH AND 
ALLIED THEMES (CEHAT) AND ORS. 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER IO, 2003 
[M.B. SHAH AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of 
Sex Selection) Act, I 994: 
Female infanticide-Sex selection/sex determination-Pre-natal 
Diagnostic Techniques-Contravention of the provisions of PNDT Act-
Various directions isued to Central Government and States!UTs for proper 
implementation of the provisions of the PNDT Act-Pre-natal Diagnostic 
A 
B 
c 
Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 (Old). 
D 
The petitioners had filed the present . writ petition before this 
Court praying inter alia that as the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques 
contravene the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic 
Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PNDT), the E 
Central Government and the State Governments be directed to 
implement the provisions of the PNDT Act. 
This Court issued directions for the proper implementation of the 
PNDT Act to the following authorities. : 
(a) Central Government. 
(b) Central Supervisory Board. 
(c) State Governments/UT Administrations. 
(d) Appropriate Authorities. 
However, to a large extent the PNDT Act was not implemented 
by the Central Government or the State Governments. Certain States/ 
F 
G 
UTs did not even file their affidavits. 
H 
593 
594 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the petition, the Court directed : 
(a) For effective implementation of the Act, information should 
be published by way of advertisements as well as on electronic media. 
This process should be continued until there is awareness in public that 
B there should not be any discrimination between male and female child. 
(b) Quarterly reports by the appropriate authority, which are 
submitted to the Supervisory Board should be consolidated and 
published annually for information of the public at large. 
C 
(c) Appropriate authorities shall maintain the records of all the 
meetings of the Advisory Committees. 
(d) The national monitoring and Inspection Committee constituted 
by the Central Government for conducting period inspection shall 
D continue to function until the Act is effectively implemented. 
E 
(e) As provided under Rule 17(3) of the Pre-conception and Pre-
natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1974, 
public would have access to the records maintained by different bodies 
constituted under the Act. 
(f) Central Supervisory Board would ensure that the following 
States appoint the State Supervisory Board as per the requirement of 
Section 16A : 
F 
1. Delhi 2. Himachal Pradesh 3. Tamil Nadu 4. Tripura 5. Uttar 
Pradesh. 
(g) As per the requirement of Section 17(3), the Central Supervisory 
Board would ensure that the following States appoint the multi-
G member appropriate authorities : 
1. Jharkhand 2. Maharashtra 3. Tripura 4. Tamil Nadu 5. Uttar 
Pradesh. (605-E-H, 606-A-Dl 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 301 of 
H 2000. 
.. 
CENTRE FOR ENQUIRY INTO HEAL TH AND ALLIED THEMES (CEHAT) v. U.0.L [SHAH,l.] 595 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
A 
Attorney General for India (NP), Raju Ramachandran, Additional 
Solicitor General, P. Ghosh, Sanjay Parikh, Ashmita Basu, S.Santanam 
Swaminadhan, A.N. Singh, P. Roy, Rauf Rahim, Rajeev Mehta, Krishan 
Mahajan, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Ms. Anil Katiyar, D.S. Mahra, Ms. Hemantika B 
Wahi, Ms. Aruna Gupta, Radha Shyam Jena, Ashok Mathur, Rajesh 
Pathak, Altaf H. Nayak, Advocate General for J & K, Anis Suhrawardy, 
J.S. Attri, V.N. Raghupathy, A.K. Shukla, Ms. Bharati Upadhyaya, Ranji 
Thomas, Bhawani Shankar Gadnis, Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Akshay Gadnis, Ms. 
Smitha Inna, San jay R. Hegde, R.K. Rathore, Addi. Advocate General, Ms. c 
Naresh Bakshi, R. S. Suri, Rajeev Sharma, Mrs. V.D. Khanna, U.U. Lalit, 
S.S. Shinde, Mukesh K. Giri, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, B. V. Niren, 
Guntur Prabhakar, Gopal Singh, Ms. Vimla Sinha, Ms. Vani Singh, Anil 
Shrivastav, Jyoti Dutt, Ranjan Mukherjee, A.S. Punjdir, P.N. Ramalingam, 
Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, S.K. Agnihotri, Sakesh 
Kumar, B.B. Singh, Kumar Rajesh Singh, R.C. Verma, Mukesh Verma, D 
Manish Shanker, V.G. Pragasam, Prakash Shrivastava, G.S. Chatterjee, 
Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Bhargava V. Desai, Sanjeev Kumar Singh, 
Pradeep Mallik, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Mohit K. Bhandari, Ms. Manjula 
Gupta, Ms. Indra Sawhney, V. Rama
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.