SABU MATHEW GEORGE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is submitted by Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that despite the legal prohibition, the respondents, namely, Google India, Yahoo India and Mocrosoft Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd., are still getting things advertised in violation of the legal provisions contained in the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, as amended from time to time. Learned counsel would submit that the Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communication and Information and the competent authority of Department of Health and Family Welfare are required to work harmoniously to see to it that the provisions of the 1994 Act are not violated, for that gravely affects the sex ratio in the country which has been seriously viewed by the legislature, as well as by this Court on the basis of legislation made by the Parliament.

(2.) Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No3, Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 and Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, pray for some time to file their respective replies to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Before we proceed to deal with the prayer for grant of time, we think it is obligatory to take note of one aspect. The Group Coordinator, Cyber Laws Formulation and Enforcement Division, Government of India, Department of Information Technology, had filed a counter affidavit on 16th August, 2010. We are compelled to reproduce a part of the said affidavit: