Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad comprising Justice Kishore Sant recently refused relief to a 'Kirtankar' namely Nivrutti Maharaj who had said that people wanting to conceive a male child should have sex on even days. 

The high court was hearing a plea filed by the private person claiming to be a social activist in Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti who had challenged the order passed by the sessions court that had quashed and set aside the summons issued to the preacher. The petitioner further prayed for the restoration of the case against the preacher.

The bench referred to the provisions of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act and said that advertisement cannot be restricted only to the extent of diagnostic centers, and clinics but anything that propagates or tries to impose upon the message that by use of certain techniques sex of the foetus can be selected.

It was alleged that on January 4, 2020, the preacher, gave a talk to a gathering about methods for conceiving a male child. Allegedly, he referenced certain passages from religious texts and Ayurvedic books. He stated during his speech that if a married couple engages in sexual intercourse on even dates, the wife is more likely to conceive a male child, while intercourse on odd dates would increase the chances of conceiving a female child.

The sessions court while quashing the case against him had recorded that he did not mention any lab or centre for sex determination and that his words did not amount to propagation of sex selection. The session court had further noted that the statements during 'religious discourse' were not controversial.

The high court while restoring the case against the preacher said that,

"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 believe to be true amounting to an advertisement and propagation are necessary questions which will have to be gone into by conducting a trial".

The bench also noted that the trial court had correctly considered the complaint and had come to the right conclusion.

"The learned trial court had rightly considered the complaint and the material before him and has come to a right conclusion. The Sessions Court, however, has practically appreciated all the material like evidence after trial and has come to a conclusion and delivered the judgment," the court noted.

The bench while restoring the case further recorded that the preacher had not only advertised but claimed that the techniques are based on a scientific basis.

"In this case, the respondent has not only advertised but has claimed the information about the techniques to be correct and have a scientific base. He also supports that such texts have religious sanctity which makes it more serious looking to the people before whom speeches are made," the bench recorded.

Case Title: Ranjana Pagar-Gawande vs Nivrutti Kashinath Deshmukh (Indorikar) & Ors.