TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | Time CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Advertisement

Gender-based foetus destruction on: HC

Saurabh Malik Tribune News Service Chandigarh, November 2 Despite legislation, the menace of gender-based destruction of foetus continues to plague society, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted. The assertion came in a case where the accused allegedly “dramatised”...
Advertisement

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Advertisement

Chandigarh, November 2

Despite legislation, the menace of gender-based destruction of foetus continues to plague society, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted.

The assertion came in a case where the accused allegedly “dramatised” the conduct of ultrasound on a decoy customer and showed pre-recorded video in the name of sex determination. He allegedly played the video on an LCD screen.

Advertisement

The matter was placed before Justice Avneesh Jhingan’s Bench after accused Hassan Mohd sought anticipatory bail.

Justice Jhingan asserted that determining the gender of foetus was a malaise affecting society and the desire to have a male child was an open secret.

Considering society’s disdainful attitude to female child and use of diagnostic equipment for female foeticide, the Act was enacted to curb prenatal sex determination, but the menace continued, Justice Jhingan pointed out.

“The Constitution guarantees equality to genders, but prenatal sex determination deprives a female foetus to come to this world. The termination of female foetus is destruction of woman of future. There cannot be a dispute on the fact that woman has a multi-faceted role in society,” Justice Jhingan asserted.

Referring to the petitioner’s contention regarding absence of a complaint, Justice Jhingan stated that a person in participation against an enactment and a party to illegal act was not expected to come forward to lodge a complaint. “The persons being fleeced probably would not be aware that in the name of determination of sex, they were shown pre-recorded video,” Justice Jhingan added.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement