- (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 v. Union of India and Others, 2016(6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 250 : (2016) 10 SCC 265, the Court had issued number of guidelines. In the said case, it has been observed thus:- "Before parting with the case, let it be stated with certitude and without allowing any room for any kind of equivocation or ambiguity, the perception of any individual or group or organization or system treating a woman with inequity, indignity, inequality or any kind of discrimination is constitutionally impermissible. The historical perception has to be given a prompt burial. Female foeticide is conceived by the society that definitely includes the parents because of unethical perception of life and nonchalant attitude towards law. The society that treats man and woman with equal dignity shows the reflections of a progressive and civilized society. To think that a woman should think what a man or a society wants her to think is tantamounts to slaughtering her choice, and definitely a humiliating act. When freedom of free choice is allowed within constitutional and statutory parameters, others cannot determine the norms as that would amount to acting in derogation of law. Decrease in the sex ratio is a sign of colossal calamity and it cannot be allowed to happen. Concrete steps have to be taken to increase the same so that invited social disasters do not befall on the society. The present generation is expected to be responsible to the posterity and not to take such steps to sterilize the birth rate in violation of law. The societal perception has to be metamorphosed having respect to legal postulates."
(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 Section 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.;