High Court of Bombay Holds Speeches on Sex Selection Techniques in Religious Discourses to Be Examined in Trial
In a significant ruling, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, pronounced that speeches made by a public speaker on techniques for sex selection during religious discourses should be subject to examination in a trial. The court dismissed a writ petition for lack of locus standi while allowing intervention, highlighting the necessity for further proceedings to ascertain if an offense has been committed under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act).
The judgment, delivered by Justice Kishore C. Sant, stemmed from Criminal Writ Petition No. 546 of 2021, filed by Ranjana Pagar-Gawande, a self-proclaimed social activist associated with the Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti (Superstition Eradication Committee). The petitioner challenged an order issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, which had quashed the process initiated against the respondent, Nivrutti Kashinath Deshmukh (Indorikar), a renowned public speaker known as a “Kirtankar.”
The court deliberated on the maintainability of the writ petition, specifically the petitioner’s locus standi, and concluded that she was not the competent authority under the PCPNDT Act, thus lacking the requisite standing to file the petition. Consequently, the court dismissed Writ Petition No. 546/2021.
However, the court allowed an intervention application filed by an intervenor, Ms. Neha Kamble, who had previously assisted the learned Public Prosecutor in the revisional court proceedings. The intervenor was permitted to continue supporting the prosecution in the case.
The judgment focused on the offense alleged under the PCPNDT Act, wherein the respondent, a public speaker, was accused of propagating techniques for conceiving a male child during his religious discourses. The court noted that there was prima facie material indicating a case against the respondent and emphasized the necessity of a trial to determine whether the speeches constituted an advertisement or propagation of sex selection, as defined by the Act.
Justice Sant underscored the wide interpretation of the terms “advertisement” and “propagation” within the PCPNDT Act. The court stated that the mere act of spreading such influence, based on beliefs supported by religious texts and other books, required further examination. The observations made by the learned Sessions Judge, which resulted in the quashing of the process, were deemed incorrect. Thus, the court allowed Writ Petition No. 851/2021, restoring the order of the trial court and directing it to proceed without being influenced by the previous judicial opinions.
The judgment further granted a stay on the operation of the order for a period of four weeks from the date of its pronouncement.
This ruling by the High Court of Bombay has drawn attention to the issue of sex selection techniques being propagated during religious discourses and emphasizes the importance of conducting a trial to examine the legality of such practices under the PCPNDT Act.
Justice Kishore C. Sant remarked, “By reading all the above sections and definitions, this court finds that this is a case which necessarily requires a trial whether giving such speeches spreading such influence which respondent believes to be true amounting to an advertisement and propagation are necessarily questions which will have to be gone into by conducting a trial.”
Date of Decision: 16th June, 2023
Ranjana Pagar-Gawande vs Nivrutti Kashinath Deshmukh
