“
“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”
Refusing to dilute record-keeping obligations under a statute designed to prevent sex selection and female foeticide, the Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the issuance of process under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act), and strongly reiterated that deficiencies, blanks or inaccuracies in Form F and related PCPNDT records cannot be treated as merely technical or inadvertent lapses at the threshold, because the proviso to Section 4(3) of the PCPNDT Act makes complete record maintenance mandatory and statutorily treats deficiency or inaccuracy as contravention of Sections 5 and 6 unless the contrary is proved by the person conducting ultrasonography.
Since record-keeping is central to the enforcement architecture of the Act, the Court held that the Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance on the basis of the complaint alleging such violations. The Court also held that the challenge to the competence of the complainant failed because the notification dated 15 May 2015 made the District Civil Surgeon the Appropriate Authority under the Act. Consequently, the complaint satisfied Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act, which permits cognizance only on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or an authorised officer, and the Magistrate’s assumption of jurisdiction was legally valid.
A Two-Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra emphasised that the PCPNDT Act is a welfare legislation intended to combat female foeticide and the persistent social evil rooted in patriarchal preferences for a male child. Referring to Voluntary Health Assn. of Punjab v. Union of India [(2013) 4 SCC 1], the Bench reiterated that destruction of a female foetus affects both the present and future social order and that awareness must be coupled with real focus on women’s empowerment. The Bench connected this social context to the need for strict implementation of the statutory framework.
The Bench also extracted the relevant statutory provisions, particularly Section 4(3) and its proviso, Sections 5, 6, 23 and 28 of the PCPNDT Act, and highlighted that the proviso to Section 4(3) expressly mandates complete record-keeping, with any deficiency or inaccuracy amounting to contravention of Sections 5 or 6 unless the contrary is proved by the person conducting ultrasonography. The Bench also reproduced Form F under the Rules and noted that the alleged deficiencies in that form were “front and centre” in the case.
Relying heavily on Federation of Obstetrics & Gynaecological Societies of India v. Union of India [(2019) 6 SCC 283], the Bench observed that non-maintenance of record is not a mere clerical lapse but a “springboard for commission of offence of foeticide.” It noted that the detailed forms prescribed under the Rules are necessary for effective implementation of the Act, that improper maintenance of records amounts to violation of Sections 5 and 6 by virtue of the proviso to Section 4(3) of PCPNDT, and that complete contents of Form F are mandatory. On that basis, the Bench rejected the attempt to characterise the omissions and inaccuracies as trivial or technical.
The Bench further observed that, although there has been some statistical improvement in the sex ratio in recent years, the data does not justify dilution of the statutory regime. It referred to recent survey and census-linked material showing some improvement in the sex ratio and sex ratio at birth, but recorded that the position remains uneven and below the biologically expected level. The Bench therefore stated that the integrity and strict enforcement of welfare-oriented legislation such as the PCPNDT Act remains essential until there is a real and widespread change in social mentality concerning the girl child.
Briefly, the appeal arose from a challenge to the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench judgment, by which the High Court refused to interfere with the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance and the revisional order affirming issuance of process. The Trial Court had issued process under Section 204 CrPC for offences punishable under Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 for alleged violations of Sections 4(3), 5, 6 and 29 of the Act and Rules 9, 8(5) and 18(9).
An authority conducted a search, seized the appellant’s equipment, issued notice under Section 20(1) of the PCPNDT Act, and called upon him to explain the alleged breaches. The appellant appeared before the Advisory Committee on 22 March 2016 pursuant to a letter dated 18 March 2016, following which the sonography centre was suspended and the sonography machine was seized by communication dated 23 March 2016. The seizure and suspension had separately been challenged and that, as on the date of judgment, the machine had been released and registration restored, making that aspect a non-issue in the appeal.
Before the revisional court and the High Court, the appellant raised two principal contentions: first, that the Civil Surgeon was not the “Appropriate Authority” under the Act and therefore the complaint and cognizance were incompetent; second, that the blanks and errors in Form F were only technical and inadvertent, and that maintenance and updating of records was the responsibility of hospital staff rather than the appellant himself. These contentions were rejected, and the High Court relied on the notification dated 15 May 2015 appointing the District Civil Surgeon as the Appropriate Authority, to hold that deficiencies in record maintenance were not trivial but fell within the substantive statutory framework of the Act.
