 Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act).webp)
The Supreme Court on Thursday (11 June) dismissed an appeal filed by a Maharashtra-based doctor challenging criminal proceedings initiated against him under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act). The Court held that maintaining complete and accurate records under the law is a vital safeguard against sex-selection practices and cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra delivered the judgment on June 11, 2026.
Background of the Case
The case arose after authorities conducted an inspection of the appellant's sonography centre and alleged violations of the PCPNDT Act. Following scrutiny of records and proceedings before the Advisory Committee, action was initiated against the doctor for alleged breaches relating to maintenance of mandatory records, including Form F, which is required for prenatal diagnostic procedures.
The Judicial Magistrate First Class at Ardhapur took cognizance of the complaint and issued process against the doctor under Section 23 of the Act. Subsequent challenges before the Sessions Court and the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench were unsuccessful, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
The appellant raised two principal objections.
First, it was argued that the Civil Surgeon who initiated the proceedings was not the competent "Appropriate Authority" under the PCPNDT Act. Second, the appellant contended that the alleged deficiencies and blank entries in Form F were inadvertent or technical mistakes and did not reflect any intention to violate the law.
The State opposed the appeal, relying on statutory provisions and earlier judgments emphasizing the importance of strict compliance with record-maintenance requirements.
Justice Karol, writing for the Bench, began the judgment with reflections on the value of the girl child and the purpose behind the PCPNDT Act. The Court observed that the legislation was enacted to combat sex selection and female foeticide, social evils that continue to affect gender balance in society.
Referring to earlier Supreme Court precedents, the Bench noted that incomplete or inaccurate records are not simple clerical mistakes.
The Court quoted from previous rulings and reiterated that,
"Non-maintenance of record is springboard for commission of offence of foeticide, not just a clerical error."
The Bench emphasized that Form F is a crucial mechanism for monitoring compliance with the law. It observed that the complete contents of Form F are mandatory and that deficiencies in the form may amount to violations of the statutory provisions unless proved otherwise during trial.
Rejecting the argument that the alleged errors were merely technical, the Court held that the nature and extent of such violations are matters that must be examined during trial and cannot be dismissed at the threshold stage.
The Court also accepted the finding that the Civil Surgeon had been duly notified as the Appropriate Authority under the Act and therefore possessed the competence to initiate the proceedings.
The judgment devoted considerable attention to the continuing challenge of gender imbalance in India. The Bench referred to official data, national surveys, and government initiatives aimed at improving the status of girls and preventing sex-selective practices.
The Court observed that although improvements have been recorded over the years, the progress remains uneven and there is no room for complacency. According to the Bench, strict enforcement of welfare-oriented legislation such as the PCPNDT Act remains necessary until genuine equality is achieved.
Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that the Magistrate had rightly taken cognizance of the complaint and that no interference was warranted at this stage.
"The appeal, in view of the cumulative assessment above, is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed," the Bench held.
All pending applications were also disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Dr. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9574 of 2018
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Decision Date: 11 June 2026
