Deficiencies in Form F NOT mere technical errors: SC denies relief to doctor, upholds criminal proceedings under PCPNDT Act

New Delhi: Reiterating that the contents of the Form F under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) are mandatory, the Supreme Court recently upheld criminal proceedings against a doctor accused of maintaining deficient records.

"The provisions ... and also the judicial interpretation thereof leave no room for doubt. The keeping of records is essential to the Act and its avowed purpose," observed the Apex Court, reiterating that deficiency and inaccuracy in record keeping amount to contravention of Section 5 or Section 6 of the Act.

The Apex Court bench held that the complete maintenance of records is essential to the statutory scheme aimed at preventing female foeticide. It noted, "Consequently, the integrity and strict enforcement of welfare-oriented legislation such as the PCPNDT Act remain essential along with efforts continued and earnest, till the time there is a widespread change in mentality and what till now, is perceived as the ‘inherent weakness’ of the woman, is replaced by true equality, when there will dawn a realization that efforts such as these are no longer required. This is not to say that the laws protecting women within legislation such as IPC/BNS will no longer be required but at least, there will no longer be a question on whether a girl child deserves to be born."

With this observation, the top court bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed the appeal filed by the accused doctor and upheld the orders of the Judicial Magistrate, the Revisional Court and the Bombay High Court, which had earlier refused to interfere with the doctor's prosecution initiated under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act.

Case Background:

The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the appellant doctor, who was running a registered sonography centre in Maharashtra. During an inspection conducted under the PCPNDT Act, the competent authority searched the appellant's establishment, seized the sonography equipment, and issued a notice under Section 20(1) of the Act, calling upon him to explain.

Based on the letter issued by the Authority on 18th March 2016, the doctor appeared before the Advisory Committee, constituted under the Act on 22nd March 2016. After hearing his side, it was concluded that prima facie material existed indicating violations under the PCPNDT Act.

Accordingly, the suspension of the sonography centre and seizure of the sonography machine was ordered on 23rd March 2016. Proceedings before the Trial Court were initiated on 28th April 2016.

After the inspection, a complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ardhapur. On 09.06.2016, the Magistrate directed the issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable under Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 19945 for violation of Sections 4(3), 5, 6 and 29 of the Act and Rules 9, 8(5) and 18(9).

The Apex Court noted that although the suspension order and the seizure of the machine had subsequently been challenged and he had ultimately secured restoration of the registration and the release of the machine, those issues were not the subject of the appeal before the Apex Court. The only question before the top court bench was whether the Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of the criminal complaint.

Challenging the Trial Court's directions, the appellant-doctor argued that the Civil Surgeon was not the appropriate Authority under the Act and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was without basis. Further, it was urged that the errors or blanks in Form 'F' were technical errors and inadvertent. They were not errors backed by intention.

Both of these submissions were rejected by the Revisional Court. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the Bombay High Court, which upheld the Magistrate's order after taking note of the Government Notification dated 15.05.2015, appointing the District Civil Surgeon as the Appropriate Authority under the Act.

Further, the High Court held that the errors in maintaining the records were not a trivial matter and compromises in maintaining the record, apart from being a substantive offence under the proviso to Section 4(3), would also be offensive to the scope of the Act. The extent and manner of violations in maintaining the record is a question of trial and had to be determined in such proceedings. The order of the Magistrate suffered from no error, concluded the HC. Following this, challenging the HC order, the doctor approached the Supreme Court.

Observations by the Supreme Court:

The Apex Court bench referred to the observations in Voluntary Health Assn. of Punjab v. Union of India, where the top court bench observed, "Female foeticide has its roots in the social thinking which is fundamentally based on certain erroneous notions, egocentric traditions, perverted perception of societal norms and obsession with ideas which are totally individualistic sans the collective good."

The bench noted that even after a decade, the sentiments remain similar. Further, the bench also referred to relevant provisions under the PCPNDT Act.

Relying on this, the bench observed, "Section 32 of the Act, provides the rulemaking power. Under this Authority, the Central Government has framed the PreConception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996. The Scheme thereof was discussed in a recent judgment of this Court speaking through Bhuyan J., in Naresh Kumar Garg (Dr.) v. State of Haryana."

The bench also reproduced the errors and blanks in Form 'F'. It was observed by the top court bench,

"The importance and essentiality of the form to the proper functioning of the Act is no longer up for debate. The position stands settled in Federation of Obstetrics & Gynaecological Societies of India v. Union of India."

In this judgment titled Federation of Obstetrics & Gynaecological Societies of India v. Union of India, it was held that "Non-maintenance of record is springboard for commission of offence of foeticide, not just a clerical error. In order to effectively implement the various provisions of the Act, the detailed forms in which records have to be maintained have been provided for by the Rules. These Rules are necessary for the implementation of the Act and improper maintenance of such record amounts to violation of provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, by virtue of proviso to Section 4(3) of the Act."

Before that, the High Courts also echoed similar positions- the Gujarat High Court in Suo Motu v. State of Gujarat, and the Bombay High Court in Sai v. State of Maharashtra, noted the Apex Court bench.

Referring to these provisions and also judicial interpretation, the bench clarified that keeping of records is essential to the Act and its avowed purpose. It observed, "It is true that in general terms, the declining sex ratio issue is better and has shown considerable improvement but, however, diluting the provisions of law, or letting infractions thereof slide cannot be countenanced. According to official Government of India data, the country’s sex ratio has shown clear signs of improvement in recent years, though the story is not entirely straightforward. The National Family Health Survey-5 (2019–21)11, conducted under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, records the sex ratio to be 1,020 females per 1,000 males, compared to 991 in NFHS-4 (2015–16).12 . At the same time, the sex ratio at birth, which reflects the number of girls born relative to boys in the five years preceding the survey, stood at 929 females per 1,000 males."

The bench also referred to Census data and noted, "Turning back the page of history confirms this assessment. Census data shows that the national child sex ratio declined from 945 in 1991 to 927 in 2001 and further to 919 in 2011, reflecting the severity of the imbalance that prompted stringent implementation of the PCPNDT Act. The recovery to 929 at birth signals a partial course correction, but yet, not a path of true equality and acceptability. Differences across State drive whom this point. For example, Haryana and Punjab, which recorded child sex ratios below 900 in the years immediately after the turn of the century have demonstrated improvement in subsequent surveys showing the success of the regulations as enforced and the awareness measures being implemented. Nonetheless, several states still do report sex ratios at birth below the national average. This shows the continuing presence of deep-seated patriarchal preferences towards a male child and the ‘behind the curtains’ prevalence of sex selection practices."

According to the Supreme Court, the current scenario, good, or not so good, with scope for improvement, is a result of the is a result of continued efforts by Central and State Governments.

"We may only observe that more than seventy-five years after we have set out to chart our own path, even today seeing posters for education and upliftment, including financial security, of a girl child is not a sight out of the ordinary, in any town or city, including Delhi, where it is most often visible on the buses of the Delhi Transport Corporation," it noted.

The Apex Court also referred to the various schemes brought in over the years to curb female foeticide and to improve the conditions of women in society and noted, "These schemes are indicative of continued efforts to eradicate the systemic bias suffered by the girl child in an inherently patriarchal system. Much progress has been made, and yet, much is left to be desired. In sum, while the situation is markedly better than it was in the mid-1990s, the data does not support complacency. The statistics referred to above show that the progress made is incomplete and uneven. Consequently, the integrity and strict enforcement of welfare-oriented legislation such as the PCPNDT Act remain essential along with efforts continued and earnest, till the time there is a widespread change in mentality and what till now, is perceived as the ‘inherent weakness’ of the woman, is replaced by true equality, when there will dawn a realization that efforts such as these are no longer required. This is not to say that the laws protecting women within legislation such as IPC/BNS will no longer be required but at least, there will no longer be a question on whether a girl child deserves to be born."

With this observation, the top court bench dismissed the doctor's appeal and denied the relief prayed for.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/06/30/dr-vs-state-of-maharashtra-356958.pdf

Also Read: Second FIR against Pune doctor couple for alleged PCPNDT violations