In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court threw out proceedings against a doctor who was said to have illegally disclosed a fetus’s gender, citing a lack of proof to support the claims. In this case, a sting operation was carried out at an ultrasound centre in Hari Nagar in 2020 to uncover violations of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PC and PNDT) Act, which forbids determining a fetus’s sex unless there are specific medical circumstances.
The doctor was charged for violating the PC and PNDT Act after it was alleged that a laboratory worker at the ultrasound centre had told a couple the fetus’s gender. Although the doctor was charged with helping to facilitate the gender reveal, the court’s decision focused on the absence of hard proof that connected the doctor to the illegal activity. The case’s judge, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, stated that there was insufficient proof to establish the doctor’s direct involvement in the unlawful gender reveal. The court stressed that there was no evidence linking the doctor to the gender disclosure, which was made by a laboratory worker.
In addition, the court carefully considered the investigation’s delay, which played a significant role in its ruling. Justice Singh emphasized the excessive delay in filing the charge sheet, pointing out that the FIR (First Information Report) had been filed years after the alleged crime. The court determined that the lawsuit lacked validity and was likely to be quashed as a result of the protracted period, which raised issues about needless harassment and the delayed acquisition of evidence.
Justice Singh noted in her ruling that the case was dismissed primarily due to the delayed investigation and the insufficiency of evidence against the doctor. The ruling also emphasized how crucial it is to stop harassing innocent people and make sure that charges are brought as soon as possible. The court’s emphasis on maintaining due process, shielding people from unjustified lawsuits, and making sure that investigations are carried out fairly and within appropriate time constraints is reflected in the decision.
Therefore, even if the case raises grave concerns about the PC and PNDT Act violations, it also serves as a reminder that charges must be supported by prompt and unambiguous evidence in order to achieve justice.
SOURCE :
INDIAN EXPRESS
