CASE NAME: Dr. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
CASE NUMBER: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9574 of 2018); 2026 INSC 635
COURT: Supreme Court of India
DATE: June 11, 2026
QUORUM: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
FACTS:
Dr. Ramesh, a registered sonographer and proprietor of a sonography centre, was found to be not keeping records of all the procedures performed under the Pre Concurrent and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) and the Rules made under it. The District Civil Surgeon, the Appropriate Authority under the notification dated 15 May 2015, conducted a search, seized the sonography equipment and sent a notice under Section 20(1) asking the explanation of the violations. The appellant in the present case appeared before the Advisory Committee, on 22 March 2016, on a notice. On 23 March 2016, the Committee concluded that there were prima facie violations of the Act, so the Committee suspended the centre and seized the sonography machine. The machine was later released, and registration restored after legal action – but that issue had died out. A complaint was made in the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ardhapur on 28 April, 2016. The Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 23 of the PCPNDT Act for the violation of Sections 4(3), 5, 6 and 29 of the Act along with Rule 8(5), 9 and 18(9) of the PCPNDT Rules which were alleged against the accused persons on 9 June 2016. The appellant’s Revision Petition was rejected on 21 August 2017 and the Bombay High Court ( Aurangabad Bench) rejected the challenge also. The appellant took recourse to the Supreme Court through a suit of grievance.
ISSUES:
- Whether District Civil Surgeon was competent “Appropriate Authority” as per the PCPNDT Act to initiate proceedings?
- The question of whether the missing and/or blank responses in Form F constitute substantive violations of the Act or technical violations?
- Whether the Magistrate was at fault in taking cognizance of the offences under the PCPNDT Act?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
The Court considered Sections 4(3), 5, 6, 17, 20(1), 23, 28, 29 and 32 of the PCPNDT Act. The proviso to Section 4(3) requires full maintenance of records and raises a presumption that any inadequacy or inaccuracy is to be presumed to be in contravention of Sections 5 and 6 of the Regulations, unless the practitioner can show otherwise. The criminal penalties are in Section 23 and cognizance can be taken on a complaint from the Appropriate Authority or an authorised person in Section 28. Rules prescribe the details set out in Form F that must be contained in the form. The provisions of Section 204 CrPC governs the issuance of process after cognizance.
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT
The appellant contended that the District Civil Surgeon does not have the necessary legal competence to act as the Appropriate Authority and therefore the entire proceeding was without any legal basis. It was also argued that Form F was defective in minor, technical and inadvertent ways, with no criminal intent. Such lapses in procedure, the appellant said, should not be the subject of prosecution to counter sex-selection and female foeticide.
RESPONDENT
The State contended that the notification dated 15 May 2015 was a proper notification and the District Civil Surgeon was the appropriate authority. It said that proper maintenance of accurate records of Form F is at the very core of the enforcement of the PCPNDT Act and is not an administrative requirement. Any deficiency or inaccuracy automatically gives rise to the proviso in Section 4(3) which assumes that the deficiency is a contravention of Sections 5 and 6. The State also argued that the degree of violations should be considered at the time of trial and not at the cognizance stage.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court both rejected those arguments. As regards the authority, the Court has ruled that the notification dated 15 May 2015 clearly appointed the District Civil Surgeon as the Appropriate Authority under Section 17 of the Act. Thus, the complaint and proceedings were properly filed. The Court extensively cited its earlier ruling in Federation of Obstetrics & Gynaecological Societies of India v. Union of India (2019) 6 SCC 283 in its discussion on the issue of a deficiency in Form F. This ruling clearly had stated that total adherence to the requirements of Form F is compulsory. The Court reiterated that non-maintenance of records or inaccurate maintenance of records is not a clerical irregularity, but a “springboard” that leads to the commission of an offence of female foeticide. If there is a deficiency or inaccuracies in Form F, under the proviso in Section 4(3), it is presumed to be a contravention of Sections 5 and 6, unless rebutted by the practitioner. The Court highlighted the overall social imperative of the PCPNDT Act. The Court noted that the constitutional value of protecting the girl child and the arguments made earlier by the state that the Act could be diluted without affecting that child’s right to life under Article 21 of the constitution, had put an emphasis on the need to strictly adhere to the provisions of the Act. It recited two poems Balika ka Parichay by Subhadra Kumari Chauhan and Sanskrit maxim “Yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra devatah” to highlight the dignity and value of women. The Court considered the data of the times. While noting that the overall sex ratio at NFHS-4 was 991 and at NFHS-5, it was 1,020, the sex ratio at birth was still 929, which is lower than the biologically expected ratio, it pointed out. The Court also noted the fact that India has been ranked at the bottom of the list of the Global Gender Gap Report 2025, and looked at various welfare schemes like the Beti Bachao Beti Padhao, Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana, Pradhan Mantra Matru Vandana Yojana, Ladli Lakshmi Yojana, Kanyashree Prakalpa and other state welfare schemes. The Court noted that these measures reflect the government’s commitment and the ongoing need to ensure the proper implementation of the PCPNDT Act. The Court found that the social equality of women can only be realised through strict implementation of the welfare measures to put an end to female foeticide. As such, the failure to build Form F cannot be said to be trifling or technical.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal and confirmed the verdict of the High Court. It held that: The Appropriate Authority – the District Civil Surgeon was duly appointed and competent to commence proceedings. Substantive violations arise from deficiencies and blank entries in Form F under the proviso of Section 4(3), and trigger a presumption of contravention of Sections 5 and 6. This presumption is placed on the practitioner to rebut. The maintenance of Form F is a duty as much as it is a procedure and must be completed and accurate. The Magistrate had taken cognizance under Section 204 of CrPC for the offences punishable under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act.
CONCLUSION
This judgment is a forceful affirmation of the strong enforcement regime of the PCPNDT Act. The Supreme Court emphasised that fulfilment of the requirements under the Form F is an essential step in order to curb sex-selective practices and cannot be taken as a mere formality. The Court affirmed that good record-keeping is the foundation of the Act’s enforcement mechanism by ensuring criminal proceedings for record-keeping deficiencies. The decision also places the matter in the broader context of the fight against gender discrimination and female foeticide, and makes it clear that while there has been progress in demographic indicators, the problem is still not a simple one to solve. Doctors who carry out the prenatal diagnostic procedures are thus legally obliged to keep full and accurate records or risk criminal charges under the Act.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY : ARNAV NAIK
Read the judgment copy below:
