2019 INSC 0454
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.129 OF 2017
Federation of Obstetrics and
Gynecological Societies of India (FOGSI)      ..Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others                         ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T 
Arun Mishra, J.
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Federation of
Obstetrics   and   Gynaecological   Societies   of   India   (FOGSI)
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the   Society’)   highlighting   the   issues
and   problems   affecting   the   practice   of   obstetricians   and
gynaecologists   across   the   country   under   the   Pre­conception   and
Pre­natal   Diagnostic   Techniques   (Prohibition   of   Sex   Selection)
Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and challenging the
constitutional  validity   of Sections  23(1) and  23(2) of  the Act  and
seeking   direction   in   the   nature   of   certiorari/mandamus   for
decriminalising   anomalies   in   paperwork/record   keeping/clerical
errors in regard of the provisions of the Act for being violative of

2
Articles   14,   19(1)(g)   and   21   of   the   Constitution   of   India.     The
Society is the apex body of obstetricians and gynaecologists of the
country and is concerned for the welfare of its members.
2. The   case   set   up   on   behalf   of   the   petitioner­Society   is   that
the   Act   was   enacted   with   the   objective   to   prohibit   pre­natal
diagnostic   techniques   for   determination   of   sex   of   the   foetus
leading   to   female   foeticide.     But   unfortunately,   its
implementation is more in letter and less in spirit.   The problem
of sex determination and gender selection is a serious issue and
is   one   of   the   biggest   social   problems   faced   by   our   society.
Despite   enactment   of   the   Act   and   subsequent   amendments,   the
Child   Sex   Ratio   has   not   shown   significant   improvement,   hence,
putting   sufficient   concern   and   questions   on   the   proper
implementation of the Act.   It is contended that equating clerical
errors   on   the   same   footing   with   the   actual   offence   of   sex
determination   shows   the   inherent   weakness   in   the   language   of
the Act.
3. It   is   further   contended   that   the   Appropriate   Authority
appointed   under   the   Act   conducts   inspections   and   raids   in
various districts and cities and even if there are mere anomalies

3
in   the   paperwork,   it   seals   the   sonography   machine   and   files   a
criminal   case   under   the   Act.     As   a   result,   doctors   who   do   not
conduct   sex   determination   and   gender   selection   are   being
targeted   on   the   basis   of   aforesaid   anomalies.     The   inherent
infirmity   in   the   Act   as   it   stands   currently   in   its   present   form
amounting to treating unequals as equals.   The Act has failed to
distinguish   between   criminal   offences   and   the   anomalies   in
paperwork   like   incomplete   ‘F’­Forms,   clerical   mistakes   such   as
writing   NA   or   incomplete   address,   no   mentioning   of   the   date,
objectionable   pictures   of   Radha   Krishna   in   sonography   room,
incomplete   filling   of   Form   ‘F’,   indication   for   sonography   not
written, faded notice board and not legible, striking out details in
the Form ‘F’ etc., thereby charging the members of the petitioner­
Society   for   heinous   crime   of   female   foeticide   and   sex
determination   and   that   too  merely   for   unintentional   mistakes   in
record   keeping.     The   Act   provides   same   punishment   for   the
contravention   of   any   provision   of   the   Act,   thus   equating   the
anomalies in paperwork and the offence of sex determination and
gender  selection on the same pedestal.   The sealing  of machines
directly deprives a woman in that vicinity of a critical medical aid
and   thereby   putting   the   lives   of   the   women   in   danger.     The

4
unreasonable   sealing   of   the   sonography   machine   not   only
impacts the welfare of the women as such, but it also amounts to
undue   harassment   and   mental   torture   of   the   members   of   the
petitioner­Society.
4. It   is   further   contended   that   the   ambiguous   wording   of
Section   23(1)   of   the   Act   has   resulted   in   grave   miscarriage   of
justice   and   the   members   of   the   petitioner­Society   have   faced
grave   hardships   and   have   undergone   criminal   prosecution   for
act, which cannot be equated with the acts of sex determination. 
 
5. It   is   averred   that   even   the   smallest   anomaly   in   paperwork
which is in fact an inadvertent and unintentional error has made
the   obstetricians   and   gynaecologists   vulnerable   to   the
prosecution by the Authorities all over the country.
6. Section 23(2) of the Act empowers the State Medical Council
to   suspend   the   registration   of   any   doctor   indefinitely,   who   is
reported   by   the   Appropriate   Authority   for   necessary   action,
during   the   pendency   of   trial.     The   petitioner­Society   submitted
that   Section   23(2)   of  the   Act   is   ultra  vires   the  Constitution  as   it
assumes   the   guilt   of   the   alleged   accused   even   before   his/her
conviction   by   a   competent   court   and   hence   violates   the

5
fundamental   right   guaranteed   under   Article   21   of   the
Constitution. 
7. It is contended that presumption of innocence is a cardinal
principle   of   rule   of   law   for   which   petitioner­Society   has   placed
reliance   on   Article   14(2)   of   the   International   Covenant   on   Civil
and   Political   Rights,   1966,   which   states   that   everyone   charged
with   a   criminal   offence   shall   have   the   right   to   be   presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law.  Article 14(2) of the
International   Covenant   on   Civil   and   Political   Rights,   1966   reads
thus: 
“Article 14
1. ***
2.   Everyone   charged   with  a   criminal   offence   shall   have   the  right
to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”
8. It is contended that the Act fails to distinguish between the
cases   of   presence   and   absence   of   mens   rea   during   the
commission   of   minor   clerical   mistakes.     Mens   rea   is   not   be
presumed   at   the   time   of   taking   cognizance   and   must   be
established   as   held   by   this   Court   in   Arun   Bhandari   v.   State   of
U.P.,  (2013) 2 SCC 801.  

6
9. The   petitioner­Society   has   further   placed   reliance   on   the
decisions rendered by this Court in cases of penal statues to give
proper effect to the scheme of the Act concerned and to balance
various   interests   involved   by   striking   down/reading   down/
diluting the concerned penal provisions.
10. It   is   further   contended   that   suspension   of   the   medical
licence at the stage of framing of charges is highly improper and
harsh, which results in loss of livelihood of not only the members
of the Society, but also his family as well as the dependents, who
are deprived of financial security and well­being.   The vague and
ambiguous   wordings   of   Section   23(1)   renders   Section   25   totally
redundant. 
11. It is further  submitted that Form­F as it stands today does
not   serve   the   purpose   for   which   it   was   made   and   there   is   no
substantive   evidence   which   proves   that   errors   in   Form­F   have
any   direct   nexus   with   the   offence   of   sex   selection   and
determination.
12. Respondent   Nos.1   to   4   has   refuted   the   claims   of   the
petitioner­Society   altogether.     It   is   contended   that   the   Act   is   a
social   welfare   legislation   with   a   social   objective   to   prevent

7
elimination   of   girls   before   birth   and   it   is   not   a   general   law
providing   any   general   right   to   practice   medicine.     The   specific
choice   of   legislature  cannot   be   called   arbitrary   and   is   in  no   way
ultra   vires   or   violative   of   the   Constitution.     The   Act   is   a   Central
legislation;   however,   its   implementation   lies   primarily   with   the
States, who are required to enforce the law through the statutory
bodies in the State, constituted under the Act.  The Act empowers
the   Central   Government   to   regulate   the   use   of   pre­natal
diagnostic   techniques.     The   proliferation   of   the   technology   is
resulting in a catastrophe in the form  of female foeticide leading
to severe imbalance in child sex ratio and sex ratio at birth.  The
Centre   is   duty   bound   to   intervene   in   such   a   case   to   uphold   the
welfare  of  the  society,  especially  of  the  women   and  the  children.
The   Act   was   enacted   with   a   purpose   to   ban   the   use   of   sex
selection   techniques   before   or   after   conception;   prevent   the
misuse   of   pre­natal   diagnostic   techniques   for   sex   selection
abortions   and   to   regulate   such   techniques.     It   is   mandatory   to
maintain proper record in respect of use of ultrasound machines
under   the   Act.     For   effective   implementation   of   the   Act,   a
hierarchy   of   Appropriate   Authority   at   State,   District   and   Sub­
District level is created.

8
13. It   is   contended   that   ultrasonography   test   on   a   pregnant
woman   is   considered   to   be   an   important   part   of   a   pre­natal
diagnostic   test   and   the   person   conducting   such   test   has   to
maintain   a   complete   record   thereof   in   the   manner   prescribed   in
the   rules   and   a   deficiency   or   inaccuracy   in   maintaining   such
records   would   amount   to   an   offence.     Chapter   VII   of   the   Act
prescribes   offences   and   penalties   and   there   is   no   gradation   of
offences under the Act as it does not classify offences.   Equating
the clerical errors on same footing  with the actual offence of sex
determination is in compliance with the provisions of the Act and
rules   thereunder.     The   Act   does   not   differentiate   among   the
violations committed by doctors and provides for punishment for
all   violations   under   the   Act.     The   Act   prescribes   punishment   in
furtherance   of   its   object   and   purposes   which   is   to   prevent
detection   of   female   foetus   which   is   in   the   larger   public   interest,
hence   Section  23  of   the   Act  does  not   violate   Articles  14  and   21.
It   is   further   averred   that   right   to   practice   a   profession   under
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is not an absolute right.
14. It   is   contended   that   petitioner­Society   in   the   garb   of   social
cause is trying to mislead this Court and a criminal act cannot be

9
protected   under   the   umbrella   of   the   Article   19.     The   offences
under   the   Act   are   per   se   criminal   and   no   exemption   can   be
sought   for   criminal   violations   in   the   guise   of   public   interest   or
right to freedom.
15. It   is   contended   that   the   Appropriate   Authority   conducts
inspection   pursuant   to   the   directions   issued   by   this   Court   in
Centre  for Enquiry into  Health & Allied  Themes  (CEHAT) v. Union
of India,   (2003) 8 SCC 398, wherein it was directed to constitute
National   Inspection   and   Monitoring   Committee   for   conducting
inspections.   As the sex determination is hatched in secrecy and
committed   in   privacy   and   as   both   the   parties   are   hand   in   glove
with   each   other,   therefore   it   becomes   difficult   to   detect   the
commission   of   the   offence,   hence   traps   are   usually   laid   or   raids
are conducted by the inspecting authorities and sometimes non­
maintenance   of   records   or   incomplete   records   may   provide
substantial   evidence   towards   the   commission   of   offence.     It   is
further submitted that the Act specifically provides for the record
keeping   under   Rule   9   of   the   Pre­conception   and   Pre­natal
Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the   Rules’)   and   any   deficiency   or

10
inaccuracy   in   record   keeping   amounts   to   violation   of   Sections   5
and 6 of the Act. 
 
16. The   respondents   contend   that   record   keeping   is   important
for proper implementation of the Act and the stringent provisions
with   regard   to   maintenance   of   records   and   punishment   for
non­compliance   cannot   be   equated   or   considered   as   infirmity   of
the   Act.     If   it   is   exempted   from   the   mandatory   requirement,   the
probably   involvement   in   sex   determination   and   sex   selection   in
the   guise   of   use   of   diagnostic   techniques   would   continue
unabated.
17. It   is   also   contended   that   the   purpose   of   Form   ‘F’   is   to
maintain   personal   and   medical   record   of   the   patient   visiting   the
Pre­Natal Diagnostic Clinic to avail the services and confirmation
regarding   the   consent   of   the   patient/pregnant   woman   with
regard to the prohibition of communication of the sex of foetus so
as   to   avoid   abuse   of   the   technology.     Section   4(3)   of   the   Act
requires   every   Genetic   Counselling   Centre/Genetic   Clinic   to   fill
Form ‘F’.  The filling of Form ‘F’ is commensurate with the objects
of   the   Act   which   is   to   regulate   the   technology   and   to   avoid   the
abuse of the technology for the purpose of sex determination.   It

11
gives the insight into the reasons for conducting ultrasonography
and incomplete Form ‘F’ raises presumption of doubt against the
medical   practitioner   and   in   the   absence   of   Form   ‘F’,   the
Appropriate Authority will have no means to supervise the usage
of the ultrasonography machine and shall not be able to regulate
the use of the technique. The non­maintenance of records is not
merely   a   technical   or   procedural   lapse   in   the   context   of   sex
determination,   it   is   the   most   significant   piece   of   evidence   for
identifying   the   accused.   It   is   further   contended   that   clerical
errors   in   Form   ‘F’   fall   under   Section   4   of   the   Act   and   any
deficiency   or   inaccuracy   found   therein   shall   amount   to
contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act unless
contrary   is   proved   by   the   person   conducting   such
ultrasonography.
18. It   is   contended   that   every   aggrieved   person,   who   suffered
from   any   procedural   irregularity,   can   avail   legal   remedy   as
provided under Section 21 of the Act and Rule 19 of the Rules.
19. The  respondents  have  placed reliance  on   decision   rendered
by High Court of Gujarat in  Suo Motu v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 1
GLR   64 ,   which   dealt   with   the   issue   of   proper   maintenance   of

12
records and to the decision rendered by High Court of Rajasthan
in   S.K.   Gupta   v.   Union   of   India,   wherein   it   was   observed   that
female infants have also right to live.   There is right of still born
child to be looked after properly during pregnancy.   Once a child
is conceived, it has to be treated with dignity.  Such right cannot
be denied and practice of female foeticide/infanticide is prevailing
at large which is illegal and unconstitutional.
20. The   respondents   have   also   drawn   our   attention   to   the
provisions   of   Regulation   1.3   of   the   Indian   Medical   Council
(Professional   Conduct,   Etiquette   and   Ethics)   Regulations,   2002;
Regulation   6.2   of   Pharmacy   Practice   Regulation,   2015;   and
Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, which
contains   the   provisions   with   respect   to   maintenance   of   proper
records. 
 
21. It   is   submitted   that   Section   23   and   Section   25   are
complimentary   to  each  other,  not  contradictory  as  contended  by
the   petitioner­Society.     It   is   lastly   contended   that   no   case   for
striking down the proviso to Section 4(3) is made out.
22. Shri Soli J. Sorabjee and Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior
counsel   urged   that   present   is   the   classic   example   of   unequals

13
being   treated   as   equals.     Due   to   inherent   infirmity   in   the   Act,
whereunder   members   of   the   petitioner­Society   are   treated
unequally   as   mere   clerical   errors   has   resulted   in   breach   of
personal   liberties.     The   Act   fails   to   classify   offence   of   actual   sex
determination   vis­à­vis   clerical   error   in   maintenance   of   record.
There is no gradation of offence.  
23. The   presumption   of   innocence   ought   not   to   be   disposed
away   with   under   the   Act.     The   same   is   part   of   human   rights.
Presumption   of   innocence   continues   until   conviction.     The
provisions  of  suspension   under  Section  23(2)  is draconian.     Any
deficiency   or   inaccuracy  in   maintenance   of  records   ought   not   to
amount   to   contravention   under   Section   5   or   Section   6   and   the
proviso to Section 4(3) accordingly be diluted.  It may be clarified
that contravention of proviso to Section 4(3), Section 29 and Rule
9 or technical lapses attracting minor penalty  should not attract
Section   27   of   the   Act.     The   provision   of   Section   23(2)   be   read
down   so   that   suspension   should   not   fall   under   Section   23(2)   in
the   case   of   clerical   mistakes   or   inadvertent   technical
errors/lapses.     Issuance   of   notice   be   made   mandatory   under
Section   20.     No   action   be   taken   on   technical   grounds   such   as
writing   short   forms,   writing   ‘NA’   instead   of   “not   applicable”,

14
writing   initials   of   the   doctors   etc.   while   filing   up   Form   ‘F’.     The
competent   authority   should   consider   each   case   on   merits   with
the   aid   of   legal   advisor.     Denial   of   renewal   of   registration   of
Centre   of   a   running   unit   on   the   ground  of  pendency   of   criminal
trial   is   illegal   and   harsh.     There   should   not   be   seizure   of   any
equipment  etc.  as ultrasound  machine  are  necessary   for  human
use.     It   is   not   appropriate   to   keep   such   utilitarian   instruments
sealed.
24. Ms. Pinki  Anand,  Additional  Solicitor  General appearing  on
behalf of respondents countering the submission raised on behalf
of   petitioner­Society   contended   that   there   is   alarming   decline   in
the child sex ratio in India and in several districts it is worse as
the   ratio   per   thousand   is   below   800.     She   has   also   relied   upon
the   purpose   and   legislative   history   of   enactment   of   the   Act
including   amendments   made   thereunder   and   the   Rules.     It   has
been   made   mandatory   to   maintain   proper   records   in   respect   of
use of ultrasound machines.   The Act provides for prohibition of
sex   selection/determination   as   well   as   regulation   of   pre­natal
diagnostic   techniques.     The   rate   of   conviction   is   extremely   poor,
despite 24 years of the existence of the Act, it is only 586 out of
4202   cases   registered,   resulting   into   action   against   138   medical

15
licenses.     Emphasis   has   been   laid   by   this   Court   in   several
decisions   on   proper   maintenance   of   records.     Section   23   is   the
central   provision   in   the   scheme   of   the   Act.     Form   ‘F’   is   very
important   as   it   gives   the   details   and   the   reasons   for   conducting
ultrasonography and incomplete Form ‘F’ raises the presumption
of  doubt   against   the  medical  practitioner.    Section   23  and  Form
‘F’  are   inter­linked,  thus,   the   provisions   cannot   be   diluted.     She
further   contended   that   the   non­maintenance   of   records   is   not
merely   procedural   lapse,   it   is   key   evidence   given   the   collusive
nature   of   the   crime.     There   exist   effective   and   efficacious
remedies   to   the   instances   cited   by   the   petitioner­Society.     She
also   relied   upon   a   case   study   on   record   keeping   as   an
implementation   tool   of   Prabhakar   Hospital   in   Panipat.     The   Act
enjoys a presumption of constitutionality and no case of violation
of   fundamental   rights   has   been   made   out   by   the   petitioner­
Society.   The Act is regulatory and is for the wholesome purpose
same   advances   the   intendment   of   other   provisions   applicable   to
medical   fraternity,   which   requires   rigorous   maintenance   of
records.     Considering   the   wide   prevalence   of   violence   against
women   and   children   in   different   forms,   the   Legislature   has
enacted several Acts in order to ensure gender justice and to take

16
care of cry of female foetus.  No case for striking down, dilution or
issuance of any guidelines is made out by the petitioner­Society.
25. It   was   urged   on   behalf   of   intervenor   that   Section   28   of   the
Act   makes   it   clear   that   no   court   shall   take   cognizance   of   an
offence   unless   on   a   complaint   made   by   Appropriate   Authority.
The   composition   of   Appropriate   Authority   is   provided   under
Section 17(3)(a), which is a High­Powered Body.  The Supervisory
Board shall review the activities of the Appropriate Authorities as
provided   under   Section   16A(1)(ii).     The   Supervisory   Committee
consists   of   large   body.     Thus,   there   are   adequate   safeguards   to
maintain check and balance provided within the Act.
26. Before   we   dilate   upon   various   aspects,   we   take   note   of
provisions of the Act.  The Act was introduced by Parliament with
the following Statement of Objects and Reasons:
“STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
It is proposed to prohibit pre­natal diagnostic techniques for
determination   of   sex   of   the   foetus   leading   to   female   foeticide.
Such   abuse   of   techniques   is   discriminatory   against   the   female
sex and affects the dignity and status of women.   A legislation is
required   to   regulate   the   use   of   such   techniques   and   to   provide
deterrent punishment to stop such inhuman act.
The Bill,  inter alia , provides for:—
(i) prohibition   of   the   misuse   of   pre­natal   diagnostic
techniques for determination of sex of foetus, leading
to female foeticide;
(ii) prohibition   of   advertisement   of   pre­natal   diagnostic
techniques for detection or determination of sex;

17
(iii) permission   and   regulation   of   the   use   of   pre­natal
diagnostic techniques  for the purpose of detection of
specific genetic abnormalities or disorders;
(iv) permitting   the   use   of   such   techniques   only   under
certain conditions by the registered institutions; and
(v) punishment   for   violation   of   the   provisions   of   the
proposed legislation.
2. The Bills seeks to achieve the above objectives.”
The   concern  of   the   Legislature  was   that   the   female  child   is
not welcomed with open arms in most of Indian families and the
diagnostic technique is being used to commit female foeticide.
27. The female foeticide is not only the concern of India, but of
various   countries.     The   United   Nations   General   Assembly   had
adopted Resolution No.52/106 on  11.2.1998 expressing  concern
about   pre­natal   sex   selection,   female   infanticide   and   female
genital   mutilation.     The   said   Resolution   also   urged   all   States   to
enact   and   enforce   legislation   protecting   girls   from   all   forms   of
violence, including  female infanticide and prenatal sex selection.
The   United   Nations   Fourth   World   Conference   on   Women   in
September,   1995   adopted   the   Beijing   Declaration   and   Platform
for   Action.                   Beijing   Declaration   and   Platform   for   Action
identified “violence against women” to “include forced sterilization
and forced abortion, coercive/forced use of contraceptives, female
infanticide   and   pre­natal   sex   selection”.     It   further   urged
Governments   to   “enact   and   enforce   legislation   against   the

18
perpetrators   of   practices   and   acts   of   violence   against   women,
such   as   female   genital   mutilation,   female   infanticide,   prenatal
sex   selection   and   dowry­related   violence”.     Further   urged
Governments to “Eliminate all forms of discrimination against the
girl   child   and  the   root   causes   of   son   preference,   which   result  in
harmful   and   unethical   practices   such   as   pre­natal   sex   selection
and   female   infanticide;   this   is   often   compounded   by   the
increasing   use   of   technologies   to   determine   foetal   sex,   resulting
in abortion of female foetuses”.                             
28. Beijing   Declaration   and   Platform   for   Action   was   adopted   at
the   16 th
  Plenary   Meeting   of   the   Fourth   World   Conference   on
Women   held   on   15.9.1995   at   Beijing.     The   relevant   extract
relating   to   violence   against   women   and   actions   to   be   taken   is
reproduced hereunder:
“115.   Acts   of   violence   against   women   also   include   forced
sterilization   and   forced   abortion,   coercive/forced   use   of
contraceptives, female infanticide and prenatal sex selection.
Strategic   objective   L.2.   Eliminate  negative   cultural   attitudes   and
practices against girls
Actions to be taken
276. By Governments:
(a)   Encourage   and   support,   as   appropriate,   non­governmental
organizations and community­based organizations in their efforts
to   promote   changes   in   negative   attitudes   and   practices   towards
girls;
(b)**
(c)**

19
(d) Take steps so that tradition and religion and their expressions
are not a basis for discrimination against girls.
277.   By   Governments   and,   as   appropriate,   international   and
non­governmental organizations:
(a)**
(b)**
(c) Eliminate all forms of discrimination against the girl child and
the   root   causes   of   son   preference,   which   result   in   harmful   and
unethical   practices   such   as   prenatal   sex   selection   and   female
infanticide;   this   is   often   compounded   by   the   increasing   use   of
technologies   to   determine   foetal   sex,   resulting   in   abortion   of
female foetuses”
29. The   1994   Programme   of   Action   of   the   International
Conference   on   Population   and   Development   (ICPD)   resolved   to
eliminate all forms of discrimination against the girl child and the
root   causes   of   son   preference,   which   result   in   harmful   and
unethical practices regarding female infanticide and prenatal sex
selection,   and   also   to   increase   public   awareness   of   the   value   of
the   girl   child.     Further   urged   Governments   to   take   necessary
measures   to   prevent   infanticide,   prenatal   sex   selection,
trafficking of girl children and forcing of girls in prostitution and
pornography.     The   International   Conference   on   Population   and
Development   adopted   the   Programme   of   Action   of   the
International   Conference   on   Population   and   Development   and
passed   the   resolution   at   the   14 th
  Plenary   meeting   held   on
13.9.1994.     The   relevant   portion   of   the   aforesaid   resolution   is
extracted hereunder:

20
“4.15.   Since   in   all   societies   discrimination   on   the   basis   of   sex
often   starts   at   the   earliest   stages   of   life,   greater   equality   for   the
girl child is a necessary first step in ensuring that women realize
their full potential and become equal partners in development. In
a   number   of   countries,   the   practice   of   prenatal   sex   selection,
higher rates of mortality among very young girls, and lower rates
of school enrolment for girls as compared with boys, suggest that
"son   preference"   is   curtailing   the   access   of   girl   children   to   food,
education   and   health   care.   This   is   often   compounded   by   the
increasing   use   of   technologies   to   determine   foetal   sex,   resulting
in   abortion   of   female   foetuses.   Investments   made   in   the   girl
child's   health,   nutrition   and   education,   from   infancy   through
adolescence, are critical.
Objectives
4.16. The objectives are:
(a)   To   eliminate   all   forms   of   discrimination   against   the   girl   child
and   the   root   causes   of   son   preference,   which   results   in   harmful
and unethical practices regarding female infanticide and prenatal
sex selection;
(b) To increase public awareness of the value of the girl child, and
concurrently, to strengthen the girl child's self­image, self­esteem
and status;
(c) To improve the welfare of the girl child, especially in regard to
health, nutrition and education.
4.23.   Governments  are   urged   to  take   the  necessary  measures   to
prevent   infanticide,   prenatal   sex   selection,   trafficking   in   girl
children and use of girls in prostitution and pornography.”
 30. The   Resolution   56/139   adopted   by   the   U.N.   General
Assembly,   on   26.2.2002   expressed   deep   concern   about
discrimination against the girl child, including practices such as
female   infanticide,   incest,   early   marriage,   prenatal   sex   selection
etc.     The   Resolution   also   urged   States   to   enact   and   enforce
legislation   to   protect   girls   from   all   forms   of   violence,   including
female   infanticide   and   prenatal   sex   selection,   female   genital
mutilation,  rape,  domestic violence,  incest,  sexual  abuse,  sexual
exploitation,   child   prostitution   and   child   pornography,   and   to

21
develop   age­appropriate   safe   and   confidential   programmes   and
medical,  social  and   psychological  support  services to   assist  girls
who   are   subjected   to   violence.     The   General   Assembly   of   United
Nations   adopted   the   following   resolution   no.56/139   on
26.2.2002:
“Deeply concerned  about discrimination against the girl child and
the   violation   of   the   rights   of   the   girl   child,   which   often   result   in
less   access   for   girls   to   education,   nutrition   and   physical   and
mental   health   care   and   in   girls   enjoying   fewer   of   the   rights,
opportunities   and   benefits   of   childhood   and   adolescence   than
boys   and   often   being   subjected   to   various   forms   of   cultural,
social,   sexual   and   economic   exploitation   and   to   violence   and
harmful   practices,   such   as   female   infanticide,   incest,   early
marriage, prenatal sex selection and female genital mutilation.
10.   Also   urges   all   States   to   enact   and   enforce   legislation   to
protect   girls   from   all   forms   of   violence,   including   female
infanticide   and   prenatal   sex   selection,   female   genital   mutilation,
rape, domestic violence, incest, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation,
child   prostitution   and   child   pornography,   and   to   develop   age­
appropriate   safe   and   confidential   programmes   and   medical,
social   and   psychological   support   services   to   assist   girls   who   are
subjected to violence.”
31. Resolution   70/138,   adopted   by   the   U.N.   General   Assembly
on   17.12.2015,   also   expressed   its   concern   at   discrimination
against   girl   child   including   pre­natal   sex   selection,   and   urged
states   “to   enact   and   enforce   legislation   to   protect   girls   from   all
forms   of   violence,   discrimination,   exploitation   and   harmful
practices in all settings, including female infanticide and prenatal
sex selection”.

22
32. The General Assembly of United Nations in the 80 th
  Plenary
Meeting   adopted   resolution   no.70/138   dated   17.12.2015
concerning   the   girl   child,   the   relevant   portion   of   the   said
resolution reads thus:
“… Deeply   concerned   also   about   discrimination   against   the   girl
child   and   the   violation   of   the   rights   of   the   girl   child,   including
girls with disabilities, which often result in less access for girls to
education,   and   to   quality   education,   nutrition,   including   food
allocation, and physical and mental health­care services, in girls
enjoying   fewer   of   the   rights,   opportunities   and   benefits   of
childhood and  adolescence than boys, and in  leaving them more
vulnerable   than   boys   to   the   consequences   of   unprotected   and
premature   sexual   relations   and   often   being   subjected   to   various
forms   of   cultural,   social,   sexual   and   economic   exploitation   and
violence, abuse, rape, incest, honour­related crimes and harmful
practices,   such   as   female   infanticide,   child,   early   and   forced
marriage, prenatal sex selection and female genital mutilation.
20. Urges  all States to enact and enforce legislation to protect girls
from   all   forms   of   violence,   discrimination,   exploitation   and
harmful practices in all settings, including female infanticide and
prenatal   sex   selection,   female   genital   mutilation,   rape,   domestic
violence,   incest,   sexual   abuse,   sexual   exploitation,   child
prostitution   and   child   pornography,   trafficking   and   forced
migration,   forced   labour   and   child,   early   and   forced   marriage,
and   to  develop   age­appropriate,   safe,   confidential   and   disability­
accessible   programmes   and   medical,   social   and   psychological
support services to assist girls who are subjected to violence and
discrimination.
29. Calls   upon   Governments,   civil   society,   including   the   media,
and   non­governmental   organizations   to   promote   human   rights
education   and   full   respect   for   and   the   enjoyment   of   the   human
rights   of   the   girl   child,   inter   alia,   through   the   translation,
production   and   dissemination   of   age­appropriate   and   gender­
sensitive   information   material   on   those   rights   to   all   sectors   of
society, in particular to children.
30. Requests   the   Secretary­General,   as   Chair   of   the   United
Nations   System   Chief   Executives   Board   for   Coordination,   to
ensure   that   all   organizations   and   bodies   of   the   United   Nations
system,   individually   and   collectively,   in   particular   the   United
Nations   Children’s   Fund,   the   United   Nations   Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization, the World Food Programme,
the   United   Nations   Population   Fund,   the   United   Nations   Entity
for   Gender   Equality   and   the   Empowerment   of   Women   (UN­
Women), the World Health Organization, the Joint United Nations
Programme   on   HIV/AIDS,   the   United   Nations   Development

23
Programme, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees and the International Labour Organization, take into
account   the   rights   and   the   particular   needs   of   the   girl   child   in
country   programmes   of   cooperation   in   accordance   with   national
priorities,   including   through   the   United   Nations   Development
Assistance Framework.”
33. The   General   Assembly   of   United   Nations   adopted   the
following   resolution   no.52/106   on   12.12.1997   keeping   in   view
the   discrimination   against   the   girl   child   and   violation   of   her
rights:
“Deeply concerned  about discrimination against the girl child and
the   violation   of   the   rights   of   the   girl   child,   which   often   result   in
less access for  girls  to education, nutrition, physical and mental
health care and in girls enjoying fewer of the rights, opportunities
and   benefits   of   childhood   and   adolescence   than   boys   and   often
being   subjected   to   various   forms   of   cultural,   social,   sexual   and
economic exploitation and to violence and harmful practices such
as   incest,   early   marriage,   female   infanticide,   prenatal   sex
selection and female genital mutilation.
3.  Also urges  all States to enact and enforce legislation protecting
girls   from   all   forms   of   violence,   including   female   infanticide   and
prenatal   sex   selection,   female   genital   mutilation,   incest,   sexual
abuse,   sexual   exploitation,   child   prostitution   and   child
pornography,   and   to   develop   age­appropriate   safe   and
confidential   programmes   and   medical,   social   and   psychological
support services to assist girls who are subjected to violence.”
34. The concern world over as to female foeticide and infanticide
is writ large from aforesaid resolution.   It is worthwhile to quote
the statistics of World Factbook, 2016 of the Central Intelligence
Agency   of   the   United   States   of   America   on   female
foeticide/infanticide   across   the   world,   which   is   to   the   following
effect: 
Rank Name of the country Sex ratio at birth

24
1. Liechtenstein 126 males/100 females
2. China 115 males/100 female
3. Armenia 113 males/100 females
4. India 112 males/100 females
5. Azerbaijan 111 males/100 females
5. Viet Nam 111 males/100 females
6. Albania 110 males/100 females
7. Georgia 108 males/100 females
8. South Korea 107 males/100 females
8. Tunisia 107 males/100 females
9. Nigeria 106 males/100 females
10. Pakistan 105 males/100 females
11. Nepal 104 males/100 females
35. There is sharp decline in the sex ratio in India.   In the year
1901   where   972   females   as   against   1000   males   were   recorded.
In   1961,  it   was  recorded  as   941;  in   1971   it  was   930;  in   1981   it
was reported 934; in 1991 it was 927; in 2001 it was 933 and in
2011   it   was   943.     On   behalf   of   respondent­Union   of   India
following State wise data has been furnished:
“Sex Ratio (Female per 1000 Male) at Birth by residence, India and bigger States,
SRS 2012­14 to 2014­16
S.N. India and 2012­ 2013­ Change 2013­ 2014­ Change
India 906 900 ­6 900 898 ­2
1. Andhra
Pradesh 919 918 ­1 918 913 ­5
2. Assam 918 900 ­18 900 896 ­4
3. Bihar 907 916 9 916 908 ­8
4. Chhattisgarh 973 961 ­12 961 963 2
5. Delhi 876 869 ­7 869 857 ­12
6. Gujarat 907 854 ­53 854 848 ­6
7. Haryana 866 831 ­35 831 832 1
8. Himachal 938 924 ­14 924 917 ­7
9. Jammu &
Kashmir 899 899 0 899 906 7
10. Jharkhand 910 902 ­8 902 918 16

25
11. Karnataka 950 939 ­11 939 935 ­4
12. Kerala 974 967 ­7 967 959 ­8
13. Madhya
Pradesh 927 919 ­8 919 922 3
14. Maharashtra 896 878 ­18 878 876 ­2
15. Orissa 953 950 ­3 950 948 ­2
16. Punjab 870 889 19 889 893 4
17. Rajasthan 893 861 ­32 861 857 ­4
18. Tamil Nadu 921 911 ­10 911 915 4
19. Telangana N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 901 N.A.
20. Uttar
Pradesh 869 879 10 879 882 3
21. Uttarakhand 871 844 ­27 844 850 6
22. West Bengal 952 951 ­1 951 937 ­14
The   aforesaid   table   indicates   decline   in   18   States   and
maximum   decline  of   53   points   was  recorded  in   Gujarat   followed
by Haryana by 35 points and Rajasthan by 32 points.   Sex ratio
of   the   States   in   2014­2016   indicates   decline   in   13   States.     The
maximum   decline   of   14   points   was   recorded   in   West   Bengal
followed   by   Delhi   recorded   at   12   points.     In   a   publication   of
United Nations  (UNFPA), it  was published  that  0.46 million  girls
were   missing   at   birth   on   an   average   annually   during   the   period
2001­2012 as a result of sex­selective abortions.   The fall in sex
ratios   does   not   only   have   an   impact   on   the   demography   of   the
nation,   but   it   also   gives   rise   to   violent   practices   such   as
trafficking   of   women   and   bride   buying.     The   Act   was   conceived
out   of   the   urgency   for   the   prohibition   of   sex   selection   practices
and   prohibition   of   the   advertisement   of   the   pre­natal   diagnostic
techniques for detection/determination of sex.  It came into force

26
in the year 1996.   It was amended in 2003 following a PIL which
was   filed   in  2000  to   improve  regulation   of   technology   capable   of
sex selection.   By way of amendment in the Act, the name of the
Act   has   been   changed   to   Pre­Conception   and   Pre­natal
Diagnostic   Techniques   (Prohibition   of   Sex   Selection)   Act,   1994.
The   main   purpose   of   the   Act   is   to   ban   the   use   of   sex   selection
and   misuse   of   pre­natal   diagnostic   technique   for   sex   selective
abortions   and   to   regulate   such   techniques.     The   amendments
have   brought   techniques   of   pre­conception   sex   selection   within
the   ambit   of   the   Act   and   have   also   brought   use   of   ultrasound
machines   under   its   umbrella.     It   has   further   provided   for
constitution of Central and State Level Supervisory Board.   More
stringent   punishments   have   been   provided.     The   Appropriate
Authorities   have   been   given   powers   of   civil   court   for   search,
seizure  and   sealing.     The   maintenance   of  record   has  been   made
mandatory in respect of use of ultrasound machines.  It has also
regulated  the  sale  of ultrasound machines  only   to the registered
bodies.     The   Act   provides   for   prohibition   of   sex
selection/determination   and   regulate   pre­natal   diagnostic
technology.    Several   important   amendments   were   notified   in  the
Rules.     Rule   11(2)   was   amended   in   2011   to   provide   for

27
confiscation   of   the   unregistered   machines   and   Section   23(1)
prescribes imprisonment upto three years and with fine upto ten
thousand rupees against the unregistered clinic/facilities and on
any subsequent conviction, the imprisonment may extend to five
years   and   with   fine   which   may   extend   to   fifty   thousand   rupees
and   Section   23(3)   prescribes   imprisonment   upto   three   years   of
imprisonment   and   with   fine   upto   fifty   thousand   rupees   against
the   unregistered   clinic/facilities   for   the   first   offence   and   for   any
subsequent   offence,   the   imprisonment   may   extend   to   five   years
and with fine which may  extend to one lakh rupees.   Rule 3A(3)
has   been   inserted   in   2012   to   restrict   the   registration   of   medical
practitioners qualified under the Act to conduct ultrasonography
in   maximum   of   two   ultrasound   facilities   within   a   district   only.
Number   of   hours   during   which   the   Registered   Medical
Practitioner   would   be   present   in   each   clinic   would   be   specified
clearly   to   the   Appropriate   Authority.     The   amendment   made   to
Rule   13   in   2012   requires   every   Genetic   Counselling   Centres,
Genetic   Laboratory,   Genetic   Clinic,   Ultrasound   Clinic   and
Imaging   Centre   to   intimate   every   change   of   employee,   place,
address and equipment installed to the Appropriate Authority 30
days   in   advance   of   the   expected   date   of   such   change   and   seeks

28
issuance of a new certificate with the changes duly incorporated.
Rules   for   six   months’   training   in   ultrasound   for   the   MBBS
doctors have been notified vide GSR 14(E) dated 10.1.2014.   The
Rules include the training curriculum, criteria for accreditation of
institutions   which   will   impart   training   and   procedure   for
Competency   Based   Evaluation   Test   for   such   trained   medical
practitioners.  Revised Form ‘F’ has been notified vide GSR 77 (E)
date   4.2.2014.     The   revised   format   is   more   simplified   as   the
details   of   invasive   and   non­invasive   diagnostic   procedures   have
been separated and made more simplified.
36. There are only 586 convictions out of 4202 cases registered
even  after  24 years  of existence.   It reflects the  challenges being
faced   by   the   Appropriate   Authority   in   implementing   this   social
legislation.     Below   is   the   chart   showing   State   wise   status   of
implementation   of   the   Act   as   on   September   2018   submitted   on
behalf of respondents:
State wise status of implementation of the PC&PNDT Act as on
SEPTEMBER, 2018
S.No. States/UTs No. of
registered
bodies No. of
ongoing
Court/
Police
cases No. of
Machines
seized/
sealed Convictions* Medical
licenses
cancelled/
suspended Number
of  cases
decided/
closed
1. Andhra 
Pradesh 3119 20 18 0 0 8
2. Arunachal 
Pradesh 97 0 ­ 0 0 ­
3. Assam 930 11 4 1 0 4
4. Bihar 2761 132 38 6 0 32

29
5. Chhattisgar
h 700 14 0 0 0 7
6. Goa 174 1 1 0 0
7. Gujarat 5994 235 2 18 7 99
8. Haryana 2144 313 562 85 21 157
9. Himachal 
Pradesh 464 0 4 1 0 3
10. Jammu & 
Kashmir 493 3 13 1 0 ­
11. Jharkhand 761 32 0 2 0 ­
12. Karnataka 4711 49 58 38 0 41
13. Kerala 1737 0 ­ 0 0 ­
14. Madhya 
Pradesh 1723 50 17 4 3 9
15. Maharashtra 8672 587 462 99 79 358
16. Manipur 130 0 ­ 0 0 ­
17. Meghalaya 50 0 ­ 0 0 ­
18. Mizoram 61 0 ­ 0 0 ­
19. Nagaland 49 0 0 0 0 ­
20. Odisha 1001 66 ­ 5 0 4
21. Punjab 1603 147 38 31 1 93
22. Rajasthan 3039 701 506 149 21 368
23. Sikkim 27 0 0 0 0 ­
24. Tamil Nadu 6717 123 ­ 109 2 83
25. Telangana 3547 24 108 3 0 25
26. Tripura 48 1 ­ 0 0 ­
27. Uttarakhand 647 47 12 4 0 16
28. Uttar 
Pradesh 6031 139 39 20 1 10
29. West Bengal 3238 24 29 0 0 1
30. A & N Island 17 0 ­ 0 0 ­
31. Chandigarh 183 1 ­ 0 0 2
32. D & N Haveli 16 0 0 0 0 ­
33. Daman & 
Diu 10 0 0 0 0 ­
34. Delhi 1584 104 170 10 3 57
35. Lakshadeep 9 0 ­ 0 0 ­
36. Puducherry 109 1 ­ 0 0 ­
TOTAL 62596 2825 2081 586 138 1377
Note: *Convictions and Medical licenses data up to June 2018
37. In the light of aforesaid, we examine the submission raised
on   behalf   of   petitioner   based   upon   clerical   errors.     It   was   urged
that   the   license   of   members   of   noble   charitable   profession   are
being suspended on account of clerical errors/mistakes in paper
work under the Act and the Rules made thereunder.  On account

30
of   clerical   errors   in   filling   up   of   the   forms,   it   would   not   be
appropriate to inflict the punishment.  In case of actual offence of
sex determination, the provisions of the Act may govern the field.
As   submission   appears   to   be   attractive   and   it   requires   deep
scrutiny whether it is a clerical error in filling up of the forms or
is   foundation   of   substantial   breach   of   the   provisions   of   the   Act
and   Rules   framed   thereunder.     It   was   urged   that   Section   23   of
the Act treats unequals as equals and there is infirmity in the Act
as the clerical error in filling up of the Form ‘F’ cannot be treated
at   par   with   actual   offence   of   sex   determination.     There   is   no
gradation   of   the   offence   under   the   Act.     Learned   senior   counsel
has   placed   reliance   on   Uttar   Pradesh   Power   Corporation   Ltd.   vs.
Ayodhya Prasad  Mishra,   (2008) 10 SCC 139 ,   wherein this Court
held   that   unequals   cannot   be   treated   equally.   Treating   of
unequals as equals would as well offend the doctrine of equality
enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.  The same is
extracted hereunder:
“40.   It   is   well   settled   that   equals   cannot   be   treated   unequally.
But   it   is   equally   well   settled   that   unequals   cannot   be   treated
equally.  Treating  of unequals  as  equals  would as  well  offend  the
doctrine   of   equality   enshrined   in   Articles   14   and   16   of   the
Constitution. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that
Executive   Engineers   placed   in   Category   I   must   get   priority   and
preference   for  promotion  to  the   post  of  Superintendent   Engineer
over Executive Engineers found in Category II.”
 

31
38. It is contended that merely clerical error cannot be equated
with  offences  as mentioned  in  Sections  5 and   6 of  the   Act.   The
main   purpose   and   the   object   of   the   Act   is   being   misused   and
more   than   60   per   cent   cases   registered   under   the   Act,   are
pertaining to non­maintenance of record.
39. In   order   to   appreciate   whether   it   is   clerical   omission   or
otherwise,   we   have   to   delve   on  the   provisions   of   the   Act   what   is
mandated   thereunder.     Section   3   provides   for   regulation   of
Genetic   Counselling   Centres,   Genetic   Laboratories   and   Genetic
Clinics,   Section   3A   deals   with   prohibition   of   sex­selection   and
Section 3B deals with prohibition on sale of ultrasound machine,
etc. to persons, laboratories, clinics, etc. not registered under the
Act.  The same are extracted hereunder:
  “ 3.   Regulation   of   Genetic   Counselling   Centres,   Genetic
Laboratories   and   Genetic   Clinics. —   On   and   from   the
commencement of this Act, —
(1) no Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic
Clinic unless registered under this Act, shall conduct or associate
with,   or   help   in,   conducting   activities   relating   to   pre­natal
diagnostic techniques;
(2)   no   Genetic   Counselling   Centre   or   Genetic   Laboratory   or
Genetic   Clinic   shall   employ   or   cause   to   be   employed   or   take
services of any person whether on honorary basis or on payment
who does not possess the  qualifications as may be prescribed ;
(3)   no   medical   geneticist,   gynaecologist,   paediatrician,   registered
medical   practitioner   or  any  other   person   shall   conduct   or   cause
to   be   conducted   or  aid   in   conducting  by   himself   or  through   any
other   person,   any   pre­natal   diagnostic   techniques   at   a   place
other than a place  registered under this Act .

32
3A.   Prohibition   of   sex­selection.    —   No   person,   including   a
specialist   or   a   team   of   specialists   in   the   field   of   infertility,   shall
conduct or cause to be conducted or aid in conducting by himself
or by any other person, sex selection on a woman or a man or on
both   or   on   any   tissue,   embryo,   conceptus,   fluid   or   gametes
derived from either or both     of them.
3B.     Prohibition   on   sale   of   ultrasound   machine,   etc.,   to
persons,   laboratories,   clinics,   etc.,   not   registered   under   the
Act.    —   No   person   shall   sell   any   ultrasound   machine   or   imaging
machine or scanner or any other equipment capable of detecting
sex   of   foetus   to   any   Genetic   Counselling   Centre,   Genetic
Laboratory,   Genetic   Clinic   or   any   other   person   not   registered
under the Act.” (emphasis supplied)
40. Section   4   deals   with   regulation   of   pre­natal   diagnostic
techniques, which is extracted hereunder:
“ 4.   Regulation   of   pre­natal   diagnostic   techniques.   —   On   and
from the commencement of this Act,—
(1) no place including a registered Genetic Counselling Centre or
Genetic   Laboratory   or   Genetic   Clinic   shall   be   used   or   caused   to
be   used   by   any   person   for   conducting   pre­natal   diagnostic
techniques   except   for   the   purposes   specified   in   clause   (2)   and
after satisfying any of the conditions specified in clause (3);
(2)  no pre­natal diagnostic techniques shall  be  conducted except
for   the   purposes   of   detection   of   any   of   the   following
abnormalities, namely : —
(i) chromosomal abnormalities;
(ii) genetic metabolic diseases;
(iii) haemoglobinopathies;
(iv) sex­linked genetic diseases;
(v) congenital anomalies;
(vi) any other abnormalities or diseases as may be specified 
by the Central Supervisory Board;
(3)  no pre­natal diagnostic techniques shall be used or conducted
unless the person qualified to do so is satisfied for reasons to be
recorded   in   writing   that   any   of   the   following   conditions   are
fulfilled, namely:—
(i) age of the pregnant woman is above thirty­five years;
(ii)   the   pregnant   woman   has   undergone   of   two   or   more
spontaneous abortions or foetal loss;
(iii)   the   pregnant   woman   had   been   exposed   to   potentially
teratogenic   agents   such   as   drugs,   radiation,   infection   or
chemicals;

33
(iv) the pregnant woman or her spouse has a family history
of   mental   retardation   or   physical   deformities   such   as,
spasticity or any other genetic disease;
(v) any other condition as may be specified by the Board;
Provided   that   the   person   conducting   ultrasonography   on   a
pregnant   woman   shall   keep   complete   record   thereof   in   clinic   in
such   manner,   as   may   be   prescribed,   and   any   deficiency   or
inaccuracy   found   therein   shall   amount   to   contravention   of   the
provisions  of  section  5  or section  6 unless  contrary  is  proved  by
the person conducting such ultrasonography;
(4)   no   person   including   a   relative   or   husband   of   the   pregnant
woman   shall   seek   or   encourage   the   conduct   of   any   pre­natal
diagnostic techniques on her except for the purposes specified in
clause (2).
(5)   no  person  including  a  relative   or  husband  of  a  woman   shall
seek or encourage the conduct of any sex­selection technique on
her or him or both.”
(emphasis supplied)
There   is   prohibition   created   under   Section   4(1)   to   use   any
registered   Genetic   Counselling   Centre   or   Genetic   Laboratory   or
Genetic   Clinic   for   conducting   pre­natal   diagnostic   techniques
except for  the purposes specified in sub­section (2) of Section 4.
Wrong expression has been used as clause (2) in the Act, where it
should   be   sub­section   (2).     Be   that   as   it   may.     Section   4(2)
provides for conducting of pre­natal diagnostic techniques for the
purpose of detection of abnormalities.
Section   4(3)   provides   that   no   pre­natal   diagnostic
techniques  shall   be  used  unless  the  person  qualified   to   do  so   is
satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in writing that prescribed
conditions   are   fulfilled   such   as   age   of   the   pregnant   women   is
above   thirty­five   years;   the   pregnant   woman   has   undergone   two

34
or   more   spontaneous   abortions   or   foetal   loss;   she   had   been
exposed   to   potentially   teratogenic   agents   such   as   drugs,
radiation,   infection   or   chemicals;   the   pregnant   woman   or   her
spouse   has   a   family   history   of   mental   retardation   or   physical
deformities as prescribed therein; or any other condition as may
be specified by the Board.
In   the   absence   of   aforesaid   fulfilment   of   the   aforesaid
conditions   provided   in   Section   4(3)   and   in   the   absence   of
abnormality   as   provided   in   Section   4(2),   no   such   test   can   be
performed.     Proviso   to   Section   4(3)   makes   it   mandatory   that
person   conducting   ultrasonography   on   a   pregnant   woman   shall
keep complete record as may be prescribed and any deficiency or
inaccuracy   found   therein   shall   amount   to   contravention   of   the
provisions of Section 5 or Section 6 unless contrary is proved by
the person conducting such ultrasonography.  Section 5 provides
for   written   consent   of   pregnant   woman   and   prohibition   of
communicating the sex of foetus, whereas Section 6 provides that
determination   of   sex   is   prohibited.     Sections   5   and   6   are
extracted below:
“5.   Written   consent   of   pregnant   woman   and   prohibition   of
communicating the sex of foetus .—
(1)  No  person   referred   to  in  clause  (2)   of  section  3   shall  conduct
the pre­natal diagnostic procedures unless—

35
(a) he has  explained all known side and after effects  of such
procedures to the pregnant woman concerned;
(b)   he   has   obtained   in   the   prescribed   form   her   written
consent   to undergo such procedures in the language which
she understands; and
(c)   a  copy   of   her  written   consent   obtained   under  clause   (b)
is given to the pregnant woman.
(2)   No   person   including   the   person   conducting   pre­natal
diagnostic procedures shall  communicate  to the pregnant woman
concerned   or   her   relatives   or   any   other   person   the   sex   of   the
foetus by words, signs, or in any other manner.
6.   Determination   of   sex   prohibited. —   On   and   from   the
commencement of this Act, — 
(a)   no   Genetic   Counselling   Centre   or   Genetic   Laboratory   or
Genetic   Clinic   shall   conduct   or   cause   to   be   conducted   in   its
Centre,   Laboratory   or   Clinic,   pre­natal   diagnostic   techniques
including   ultrasonography,   for   the   purpose   of   determining   the
sex of a foetus;
(b)   no   person   shall   conduct   or   cause   to   be   conducted   any   pre­
natal   diagnostic   techniques   including   ultrasonography   for   the
purpose of determining the sex of a foetus.
(c)   no   person   shall,   by   whatever   means,   cause   or   allow   to   be
caused selection of sex before or after conception.”
(emphasis supplied)
41. Independently,   specific   provisions   have   been   made   barring
use   of   technology   i.e.,   pre­natal   diagnostic   techniques   for
determination   of   sex   of   foetus   under   Section   6   of   the   Act.     The
use   of   technology   can   only   be   for   the   purposes   as   provided   in
Section   4(2)   and   with   the   pre­conditions   as   provided   in   Section
4(3).
42. As   a   safeguard   to   arbitrary   use   of   powers   by   concerned
authorities   the   constitution   of   State   Supervisory   Board   and

36
Union   Territory   Supervisory   Board   is   provided   in   Section   16A,
which   is   a   large   body   consisting   of   various   representatives.     It
has   to   create   public   awareness,   review   the   activities   of   the
Appropriate Authorities and to monitor the implementation of the
provisions of the Act and to send the periodical report.   Relevant
portion of Section 16A of the Act reads thus:
  “ 16A.   Constitution   of   State   Supervisory   Board   and   Union
territory Supervisory Board .—
(1)   Each   State   and   Union   territory   having   Legislature   shall
constitute   a   Board   to   be   known   as   the   State   Supervisory   Board
or   the   Union   territory   Supervisory   Board,   as   the   case   may   be,
which shall have the following functions:—
(i)   to   create   public   awareness   against   the   practice   of   pre­
conception sex selection and pre­natal determination of sex
of foetus leading to female foeticide in the State;
(ii)   to   review   the   activities   of   the   Appropriate   Authorities
functioning in the State and recommend appropriate action
against them;
(iii)   to   monitor   the   implementation   of   provisions   of   the   Act
and the rules and make suitable recommendations relating
thereto, to the Board; 
(iv) to send such consolidated reports as may be prescribed
in   respect   of   the   various   activities   undertaken   in   the   State
under   the   Act   to   the   Board   and   the   Central   Government;
and 
(v) any other functions as may be prescribed under the Act.
(2) The State Board shall consist of,—
(a)   the   Minister   in   charge   of   Health   and   Family   Welfare   in
the State, who shall be the Chairperson,  ex­officio ;
(b)   Secretary   in   charge   of   the   Department   of   Health   and
Family   Welfare   who   shall   be   the   Vice­Chairperson,   ex­
officio ; 
(c)   Secretaries   or  Commissioners   in   charge   of   Departments
of Women and Child Development, Social Welfare, Law and
Indian System of Medicines and Homoeopathy,   ex­officio , or
their representatives;
(d)  Director of Health and  Family Welfare or  Indian System
of   Medicines   and   Homoeopathy   of   the   State   Government,
ex­officio ;
(e)   three   women   members   of   Legislative   Assembly   or
Legislative Council;

37
(f)   ten   members   to   be   appointed   by   the   State   Government
out of which two each shall be from the following categories:
—
(i) eminent social scientists and legal experts;
(ii)   eminent   women   activists   from   non­governmental
organizations or otherwise;
(iii)   eminent   gynaecologists   and   obstetricians   or
experts of  stri­roga  or  prasuti­tantra ;
(iv) eminent paediatricians or medical geneticists;
(v) eminent radiologists or sonologists;
(g) an officer not below the rank of Joint Director in charge
of   Family   Welfare,   who   shall   be   the   Member   Secretary,
ex­officio .
(3) The State Board shall meet at least once in four months.”
43. The   constitution   of   Appropriate   Authority   and   Advisory
Committee  is  provided  in  Section  17.   It  consists  of  an   officer   of
or   above   the   rank   of   the   Joint   Director   of   Health   and   Family
Welfare   as   Chairperson,   an   eminent   woman   representing
women’s   organization   and   an   officer   of   Law   Department   of   the
State or the Union Territory as members as the case may be.  The
functions   of   the   Appropriate   Authority   are   prescribed   in   Section
17(4).    It  empowers   the   Appropriate  Authority   to   grant,  suspend
or   cancel   the   registration,   enforce   standards,   investigate
complaints   and   to   do   other   acts   as   provided   therein.
Constitution   of   Advisory   Committee   is   also   provided   under
Section   17(6),   to   aid   and   advise   the   Appropriate   Authority,
consisting of three medical experts from amongst gynaecologists,
obstetricians,   paediatricians   and   medical   geneticists,   one   legal
expert,   an   officer   as   provided   thereunder,   and   three   eminent

38
social workers.  No person who has been associated with the use
or promotion of pre­natal diagnostic techniques for determination
of sex or sex selection can be member of the Advisory Committee.
Section 17 is extracted hereunder:
 “ 17. Appropriate Authority and Advisory Committee .—
(1)   The   Central   Government   shall   appoint,   by   notification   in   the
Official   Gazette,   one   or  more   Appropriate   Authorities   for   each   of
the Union territories for the purposes of this Act.
(2)   The   State   Government   shall   appoint,   by   notification   in   the
Official   Gazette,   one   or   more   Appropriate   Authorities   for   the
whole   or   part   of   the   State   for   the   purposes   of   this   Act   having
regard   to   the   intensity   of   the   problem   of   pre­natal   sex
determination leading to female foeticide. 
(3)  The   officers   appointed   as  Appropriate   Authorities   under  sub­
section (1) or sub­section (2) shall be,— 
(a)   when  appointed   for  the   whole   of   the  State   or  the   Union
territory, consisting of the following three members:—
(i) an officer of or above the rank of the Joint Director
of Health and Family Welfare—Chairperson;
(ii)   an   eminent   woman   representing   women’s
organization; and
(iii)   an   officer   of   Law   Department   of   the   State   or  the
Union territory concerned: 
Provided that  it shall be the  duty of the State or the Union
territory   concerned   to   constitute   multi­member   State   or
Union   territory   level   Appropriate   Authority   within   three
months of the coming into force of the Pre­natal Diagnostic
Techniques   (Regulation   and   Prevention   of   Misuse)
Amendment Act, 2002:
Provided further that any vacancy occurring therein shall be
filled within three months of the occurrence.
(b)   when   appointed   for   any   part   of   the   State   or   the   Union
territory, of such other rank as the State Government or the
Central Government, as the case may be, may deem fit.
(4)  The  Appropriate   Authority shall  have  the  following functions,
namely:—
(a)   to   grant,   suspend   or   cancel   registration   of   a   Genetic
Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic;
(b)   to   enforce   standards   prescribed   for   the   Genetic
Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory and Genetic Clinic;

39
(c)   to   investigate   complaints   of   breach   of   the   provisions   of
this   Act   or  the   rules   made   thereunder   and   take   immediate
action;
(d)   to   seek   and   consider   the   advice   of   the   Advisory
Committee,   constituted   under   sub­section   (5),   on
application   for   registration   and   on   complaints   for
suspension or cancellation of registration;
(e)   to   take   appropriate   legal   action   against   the   use   of   any
sex   selection   technique   by   any   person   at   any   place,   suo
motu   or   brought   to   its   notice   and   also   to   initiate
independent investigations in such matter; 
(f)   to   create   public   awareness   against   the   practice   of   sex
selection or pre­natal determination of sex; 
(g)  to supervise  the  implementation of the provisions of the
Act and rules;
(h)   to   recommend   to   the   Board   and   State   Boards
modifications   required   in   the   rules   in   accordance   with
changes in technology or social conditions;
(i)   to   take   action   on   the   recommendations   of   the   Advisory
Committee   made   after   investigation   of   complaint   for
suspension or cancellation of registration.
(5) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case
may   be,   shall   constitute   an   Advisory   Committee   for   each
Appropriate   Authority   to   aid   and   advise   the   Appropriate
Authority in the discharge of its functions, and shall appoint one
of the members of the Advisory Committee to be its Chairman.
(6) The Advisory Committee shall consist of—
(a)   three   medical   experts   from   amongst   gynaecologists,
obstericians, paediatricians and medical geneticists; 
(b) one legal expert;
(c)   one   officer   to   represent   the   department   dealing   with
information   and   publicity   of   the   State   Government   or   the
Union territory, as the case may be;
(d) three eminent social workers of whom not less than one
shall   be   from   amongst   representatives   of   women’s
organisations.
(7) No person who has been associated with the use or promotion
of pre­natal diagnostic techniques for determination of sex or sex
selection   shall   be   appointed   as   a   member   of   the   Advisory
Committee. 
(8) The Advisory Committee may meet as and when it thinks fit or
on   the   request   of   the   Appropriate   Authority   for   consideration   of
any   application   for   registration   or  any   complaint   for   suspension
or cancellation of registration and to give advice thereon:
 
Provided   that   the   period   intervening   between   any   two
meetings shall not exceed the prescribed period.
(9)   The   terms   and   conditions   subject   to   which   a   person   may   be
appointed   to   the   Advisory   Committee   and   the   procedure   to   be

40
followed   by   such   Committee   in   the   discharge   of   its   functions
shall be such as may be prescribed.”
44. Section   17A   empowers   Appropriate   Authority   to   summon
any   person   who   is   in   possession   of   any   information   relating   to
violation   of   the   provisions   of   the   Act   and   production   of
documents, issue search warrant etc.   It is mandatory that such
Genetic   Counselling   Centres,   Laboratories   or   Clinics   should   be
registered under Section 18 of the Act.
45. Section   20   deals   with   cancellation   or   suspension   of
registration.     An   action   can   be   taken   as   provided   under   Section
20(2) after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard.   In case
there   is   breach   of   provisions   of   the   Act   or   the   Rules,   and   the
same is without prejudice to any criminal action that it may take
against   such   Centres,   Laboratory   or   Clinic,   the   Appropriate
Authority in public interest for reasons to be recorded in writing,
can suspend the registration of any Genetic Counselling Centres,
Laboratories   or   Clinics   under   Section   20(3)   of   the   Act   without
issuing   any   notice   referred   to   in   sub­section   (1)   of   Section   20.
The   provisions   of   appeal   against   the   order   of   suspension   or
cancellation   of   registration   passed   by   Appropriate   Authority   has

41
been   provided   in   Section   21.     Sections   20   and   21   are   extracted
hereunder:
  “ 20.   Cancellation   or   suspension   of   registration. —     (1).   The
Appropriate   Authority   may   suo   moto    ,   or   on   complaint,   issue   a
notice   to   the   Genetic   Counselling   Centre,   Genetic   Laboratory   or
Genetic   Clinic   to   show   cause   why   its   registration   should   not   be
suspended or cancelled for the reasons mentioned in the notice.
(2)    If, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard   to the
Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic
and   having   regard   to   the   advice   of   the   Advisory   Committee,   the
Appropriate Authority is satisfied that there has been a breach of
the   provisions  of   this   Act   or  the  rules,   it  may,   without  prejudice
to   any   criminal   action   that   it   may   take   against   such   Centre,
Laboratory or Clinic, suspend its registration for such period as it
may think fit or cancel its registration, as the case may be.
(3)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   sub­sections   (1)   and
(2),   if   the   Appropriate   Authority   is   of   the   opinion   that   it   is
necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest, it may, for
reasons to be recorded in writing , suspend the registration of any
Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic
without issuing any such notice referred to in sub­section (1) .
21.   Appeal .—   The   Genetic   Counselling   Centre,   Genetic
Laboratory   or   Genetic   Clinic   may,   within   thirty   days   from   the
date   of   receipt   of   the   order   of   suspension   or   cancellation   of
registration   passed   by   the   Appropriate   Authority   under   section
20, prefer an appeal against such order to—
(i) the Central Government, where the appeal is against the
order of the Central Appropriate Authority; and
(ii)   the   State   Government,   where   the   appeal   is   against   the
order of the State Appropriate Authority, 
in the prescribed manner.”
(emphasis supplied)
46. Section   22   deals   with   prohibition   of   advertisement   relating
to   pre­conception   and   pre­natal   determination   of   sex   and
punishment for contravention.

42
47. Section 23 deals with offences and penalties.   Section 23(1)
provides   for   contravention   of   any   provisions   of   the   Act   or   Rules
made   thereunder,   punishment   with   imprisonment   for   a   term
which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend
to   ten   thousand   rupees.     Section   23(2)   contains   provision   with
respect to reporting of name of the registered medical practitioner
by   the   Appropriate   Authority   to   the   State   Medical   Council
concerned for passing  appropriate order including suspension of
the   registration,   if   the   charges   are   framed   by   the   Court   and   till
the case is disposed of and on conviction for removal of his name
from   the  register  of  the  Council   for  a  period  of  five  years  for   the
first   offence   and   permanently   for   the   subsequent   offence.     Any
person   who   seek   aid   of   any   Genetic   Counselling   Centre,
Laboratory,   Clinic   or   ultrasound   clinic   or   imaging   clinic   etc.   for
sex selection, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may
extend   to   three   years   and   with   fine   which   may   extend   to   fifty
thousand   rupees   for   the   first   offence   and   for   any   subsequent
offence   with   imprisonment   which   may   extend   to   five   years   and
with   fine   which   may   extend   to   one   lakh   rupees.     If   a   woman   is
compelled   by   her   husband   or   any   other   relative   to  undergo   pre­
natal   diagnostic   technique   for   the   purpose   of   Section   4(2),   such

43
person shall be liable for abetment of offence under Section 23(3).
Sections 23 and 24 are extracted hereunder:
  “ 23.   Offences   and   penalties .—   (1)   Any   medical   geneticist,
gynaecologist,   registered   medical   practitioner  or  any  person   who
owns   a   Genetic   Counselling   Centre,   a   Genetic   Laboratory   or   a
Genetic   Clinic   or   is   employed   in   such   a   Centre,   Laboratory   or
Clinic  and   renders   his   professional  or  technical  services   to  or  at
such   a   Centre,   Laboratory   or   Clinic,   whether   on   an   honorary
basis or otherwise, and   who contravenes any of the provisions of
this   Act   or   rules   made   thereunder   shall   be   punishable   with
imprisonment   for   a   term   which   may   extend   to   three   years   and
with   fine   which   may  extend   to   ten   thousand   rupees   and   on   any
subsequent   conviction,   with   imprisonment   which   may   extend   to
five   years   and   with   fine   which   may   extend   to   fifty   thousand
rupees .
(2)   The   name   of   the   registered   medical   practitioner   shall   be
reported   by   the   Appropriate   Authority   to   the   State   Medical
Council   concerned   for   taking   necessary   action   including
suspension   of   the   registration   if   the   charges   are   framed   by   the
court   and   till   the   case   is   disposed   of   and   on   conviction   for
removal of his name from the register of the Council for a period
of   five   years   for   the   first   offence   and   permanently   for   the
subsequent offence.
(3)   Any   person   who   seeks   the   aid   of   any   Genetic   Counselling
Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic or ultrasound clinic or
imaging clinic or of a medical geneticist, gynaecologist, sonologist
or   imaging   specialist   or   registered   medical   practitioner   or   any
other   person   for   sex   selection   or   for   conducting   pre­natal
diagnostic   techniques   on   any   pregnant   women   for   the   purposes
other than those specified in sub­section (2) of section 4, he shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three   years   and   with   fine   which   may   extend   to   fifty   thousand
rupees   for   the   first   offence   and   for   any   subsequent   offence   with
imprisonment which may extend to five years and with fine which
may extend to one lakh rupees.
(4)   For   the   removal   of   doubts,   it   is   hereby   provided,   that   the
provisions   of   sub­section   (3)   shall   not   apply   to   the   woman   who
was   compelled   to   undergo   such   diagnostic   techniques   or   such
selection.
24.   Presumption   in   the   case   of   conduct   of   pre­natal
diagnostic techniques    .— Notwithstanding anything contained  in
the   Indian   Evidence   Act,   1872   (1   of   1872),   the   court   shall
presume unless the contrary is proved that the pregnant woman
was compelled by her husband or any other relative, as the case
may   be,   to   undergo   pre­natal   diagnostic   technique   for   the
purposes other than those specified in sub­section (2) of section 4

44
and   such   person   shall   be   liable   for   abetment   of   offence   under
sub­section   (3)   of   section   23   and   shall   be   punishable   for   the
offence specified under that section.”
(emphasis supplied)
48. Section   25   of   the   Act   deals   with   the   penalty   for
contravention   of   the   provisions   of   the   Act   or   rules   for   which   no
specific   punishment   is   provided.     Any   contravention   under   this
Section shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees or both and in case of continuing contravention
with an additional fine which may extend to five hundred rupees
for every day.
49. Section 27 makes offence to be cognizable, non­bailable and
non­compoundable.  Section 27 is extracted hereunder:
  “ 27.   Offence   to   be   cognizable,   non­bailable   and   non­
compoundable .­Every offence under this Act shall be cognizable,
non­bailable and non­compoundable.”
50. The   mode   of   taking   cognizance   of   offence   is   provided   in
Section 28 on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority or
any   officer   authorised   in   this   behalf;   or   by   a   person   who   has
given   notice   of   not   less   than   fifteen   days   to   the   Appropriate
Authority   of   the   alleged   offence   and   of   his   intention   to   make   a
complaint to the court.  The Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial
Magistrate is competent to try any offence punishable under this

45
Act.     Maintenance   of   records   is   provided   in   Section   29   and   that
has to be preserved for two years.   In case any criminal or other
proceedings   are   instituted   against   any   Genetic   Counselling
Centre,   Laboratory   or   Clinic,   the   records   shall   be   preserved   till
the   final   disposal   of   such   proceedings.     Section   30   empowers
Appropriate Authority to search and seize records etc.  Section 31
provides for protection of action taken in good faith.
51. Section 32 empowers the Central Government to make rules
for carrying out the provisions of the Act.  Section 33 gives power
to   the   Board   to   make   regulations   with   the   previous   sanction   of
the   Central   Government.     Rules   and   regulations   are   required   to
be laid before the Parliament as provided in Section 34.
52. Rule   9   of   the   Rules   provides   for   maintenance   and
preservation of records.  The same is extracted hereunder:
9. Maintenance and preservation of records .—
(1)   Every   Genetic   Counselling   Centre,   Genetic   Laboratory   and
Genetic   Clinic   including   a   mobile   Genetic   Clinic,   Ultrasound
Clinic   and   Imaging   Centre   shall   maintain   a   register   showing,   in
serial order, the names and addresses of the men or women given
genetic counselling, subjected to pre­natal diagnostic procedures
or pre­natal diagnostic tests, the names of their spouse or father
and   the   date   on   which   they   first   reported   for   such   counselling,
procedure or test.
(2)   The   record   to   be   maintained   by   every   Genetic   Counselling
Centre, in respect of each woman counselled shall be as specified
in Form D.

46
(3)   The   record   to   be   maintained   by   every   Genetic   Laboratory,   in
respect   of   each   man   or   woman   subjected   to   any   pre­natal
diagnostic   procedure/technique/test,   shall   be   as   specified   in
Form E. 
(4) The record to be maintained by every Genetic Clinic including
a   mobile   Genetic   Clinic,   in   respect   of   each   man   or   woman
subjected   to   any   pre­natal   diagnostic   procedure/technique/test,
shall be as specified in Form F.
(5) The Appropriate Authority shall maintain a permanent record
of applications for grant or renewal of certificate of registration as
specified   in   Form   H.   Letters   of   intimation   of   every   change   of
employee,   place,   address   and   equipment   installed   shall   also   be
preserved as permanent records.
(6)  All   case   related­records,   forms   of  consent,  laboratory  results,
microscopic   pictures,   sonographic   plates   or   slides,
recommendations   and   letters   shall   be   preserved   by   the   Genetic
Counselling   Centre,   Genetic   Laboratory   or   Genetic   Clinic,
Ultrasound   Clinic   or   Imaging   Centre   for   a   period   of   two   years
from   the   date   of   completion   of   counselling,   pre­natal   diagnostic
procedure or pre­natal diagnostic test, as the case may be. In the
event of any legal proceedings, the records shall be preserved till
the final disposal of legal proceedings, or till the expiry of the said
period of two years, whichever is later.
(7) In case the Genetic Counselling Centre or Genetic Laboratory
or   Genetic   Clinic   or   Ultrasound   Clinic   or   Imaging   Centre
maintains   records   on  computer  or  other  electronic   equipment,   a
printed   copy   of   the   record   shall   be   taken   and   preserved   after
authentication by a person responsible for such record.
(8)     Every   Genetic   Counselling   Centre,   Genetic   Laboratory,
Genetic Clinic,  Ultrasound  Clinic  and Imaging  Centre  shall  send
a   complete   report   in   respect   of   all   pre­conception   or   pregnancy
related   procedures/techniques/tests   conducted   by   them   in
respect   of   each   month   by   5 th
  day   of   the   following   month   to   the
concerned Appropriate Authority.”
Rule   9   makes   it   mandatory   to   maintain   a   register   showing
in   serial   order   the   names   and   addresses   of   the   men   or   women
given   genetic   counselling,   subjected   to   pre­natal   diagnostic
procedures   or   pre­natal   diagnostic   tests,   the   name   of   their
spouse   or   father   and   the   date   on   which   they   first   reported   for

47
such  counselling.   Rule  9(2)  states that  record  to  be  maintained
uniformly.     Rule   9(4)   provides   that   record   to   be   maintained   by
every Genetic Clinic in respect of each man or woman subjected
to   any   pre­natal   diagnostic   procedure/technique/test,   shall   be
specified   in   Form   ‘F’.     Rule   10   deals   with   conditions   for
conducting   pre­natal   diagnostic   procedures.     Rule   10(1A)
provides   that   it   is   mandatory   for   every   person   conducting
ultrasonography to declare that he/she has neither detected nor
disclosed   the   sex   of   foetus   of   the   pregnant   woman   to   anybody.
The   pregnant   woman   shall   declare   before   undergoing   the   test
that   she   does   not   want   to   know   the   sex   of   her   foetus.     Rule   19
provides   for   an   appeal   against   the   decision   of   Appropriate
Authority.     Form   ‘F’,   which   is   the   bone   of   contention   of   the
learned counsel for the parties, is extracted hereunder:
                                        “FORM F
FORM FOR MAINTENANCE OF RECORD IN RESPECT OF
PREGNANT WOMAN BY GENETIC CLINIC/ULTRASOUND
CLINIC/IMAGING CENTRE
1. Name   and   address   of   the   Genetic   Clinic/Ultrasound
Clinic/Imaging Centre.
2. Registration No.
3. Patient’s name and her age
4. Number of children with sex of each child
5. Husband’s/Father’s name
6. Full address with Tel. No., if any
7. Referred   by   (full   name   and   address   of   Doctor(s)   /
Genetic   Counselling   Centre   (referral   note   to   be
preserved carefully with case papers)/self referral
8. Last menstrual period/weeks of pregnancy
9. History   of   genetic/medical   disease   in   the   family
(specify)

48
Basis of diagnosis:
(a) Clinical
(b) Bio­chemical
(c) Cytogenetic
(d)   Other   (e.g.   radiological,   ultrasonography   etc.
specify)
10. Indication for pre­natal diagnosis
A. Previous child/children with:
(i) Chromosomal disorders
(ii) Metabolic disorders
(iii) Congenital anomaly
(iv) Mental retardation
(v) Haemoglobinopathy
(vi) Sex linked disorders
(vii) Single gene disorder
(viii) Any other (specify)
B. Advanced maternal age (35 years)
C. Mother/father/sibling has genetic disease (specify)
D. Other (specify)
11. Procedures carried out (with name and registration No.
of   Gynaecologist/   Radiologist/   Registered   Medical
Practitioner) who performed it.
Non­Invasive
(i)   Ultrasound   (specify   purpose   for   which
ultrasound is to done during pregnancy)
[List of indications for ultrasonography of pregnant
women are given in the note below]
Invasive
(ii) Amniocentesis
(iii) Chorionic Villi aspiration
(iv) Foetal biopsy
(v) Cordocentesis
(vi) Any other (specify)
12. Any complication of procedure – please specify
13. Laboratory tests recommended
(i) Chromosomal studies
(ii) Biochemical studies
(iii) Molecular studies
(iv) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis
14. Result of
(a) pre­natal diagnostic procedure (give details)
(b)  Ultrasonography                     Normal/Abnormal  (specify
abnormality detected, if any).
15. Date(s) on which procedures carried out. 
16. Date on which consent obtained. (In case of invasive)
17. The   result   of   pre­natal   diagnostic   procedure   were
conveyed to ……….on ……………
18. 18. Was MTP advised/conducted?
19. Date on which MTP carried out
Date ……………..     Name, Signature and Registration number 
Place……………..       of the Gynaecologist/Radiologist/Director of
                                 the Clinic

49
DECLARATION OF PREGNANT WOMAN
I,   Ms…………………..(name   of   the   pregnant   woman)   declare   that
by   undergoing   ultrasonography   /image   scanning   etc.   I   do   not
want to know the sex of my foetus.
Signature/Thump impression of pregnant woman 
DECLARATON OF DOCTOR/PERSON CONDUCTING
ULTRASONOGRAPHY/IMAGE SCANNING
I,……………………(name   of   the   person   conducting
ultrasonography/image   scanning)   declare   that   while   conducting
ultrasonography/image   scanning   on   Ms…………………..(name   of
the   pregnant   woman),   I   have   neither   detected   nor   disclosed   the
sex of her foetus to any body in any manner.
Name and signature of the person conducting
ultrasonography/image scanning/Director or owner of
genetic clinic/ultrasound clinic/imaging centre.
Important Notes:—
(i) Ultrasound   is   not   indicated/advised/performed   to
determine   the   sex   of   foetus   except   for   diagnosis   of   sex­linked
diseases such as Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, Haemophilia A
& B, etc.
(ii) During   pregnancy   Ultrasonography   should   only   be
performed when indicated. The following is the representative list
of indications for ultrasound during pregnancy.
(1) To diagnose intra­uterine and/or ectopic pregnancy and
confirm viability.
(2) Estimation of gestational age (dating).
(3) Detection of number of foetuses and their chorionicity.
(4)   Suspected   pregnancy   with   IUCD   in­situ   or   suspected
pregnancy following contraceptive failure/MTP failure.
(5) Vaginal bleeding / leaking.
(6) Follow­up of cases of abortion.
(7) Assessment of cervical canal and diameter of internal os.
(8)   Discrepancy   between   uterine   size   and   period   of
amenorrhoea.
(9)   Any   suspected   adenexal   or   uterine   pathology   /
abnormality.
(10)   Detection   of   chromosomal   abnormalities,   foetal
structural defects and other abnormalities and their follow­
up.
(11) To evaluate foetal presentation and position.
(12) Assessment of liquor amnii.
(13)   Preterm   labour   /   preterm   premature   rupture   of
membranes.
(14) Evaluation of placental position, thickness, grading and
abnormalities   (placenta   praevia,   retroplacental
haemorrhage, abnormal adherence etc.).
(15)   Evaluation   of   umbilical   cord   –   presentation,   insertion,
nuchal   encirclement,   number   of   vessels   and   presence   of
true knot.

50
(16) Evaluation of previous Caesarean Section scars.
(17)   Evaluation   of   foetal   growth   parameters,   foetal   weight
and foetal well being.
(18) Colour flow mapping and duplex Doppler studies.
(19)   Ultrasound   guided   procedures   such   as   medical
termination of pregnancy, external cephalic version etc. and
their follow­up.
(20)   Adjunct   to   diagnostic   and   therapeutic   invasive
interventions   such   as   chorionic   villus   sampling   (CVS),
amniocenteses,   foetal   blood   sampling,   foetal   skin   biopsy,
amnioinfusion,   intrauterine   infusion,   placement   of   shunts
etc.
(21) Observation of intra­partum events.
(22) Medical/surgical conditions complicating pregnancy.
(23) Research/scientific studies in recognised institutions. 
Person   conducting   ultrasonography   on   a   pregnant   woman
shall   keep   complete   record   thereof   in   the   clinic/centre   in
Form   F   and   any   deficiency   or   inaccuracy   found   therein
shall   amount   to   contravention   of   provisions   of   section   5   or
section 6 of the Act, unless contrary is proved by the person
conducting such ultrasonography.”
53. The   Act   and   Rules   are   not   the   only   regulatory   framework
which requires the medical fraternity to keep proper record.   The
medical profession has highly specialised nature and considering
the   nature   of   services   rendered   by   medical   professional,   proper
maintenance of records is an integral part of the medical services.
It   is   contended   on   behalf   of   Medical   Council   of   India   that   the
Medical   Council   of   India   (MCI)   under   Section   33   of   the   Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 has framed the Indian Medical Council
(Professional   Conduct,   Etiquette   and   Ethics)   Regulations,   2002,
which   also   placed   a   burden   on   physicians   to   observe   the   law   of
the   country.     By   the   said   Regulations,   it   is   mandatory   for   every
doctor to maintain the records of the patients treated by him/her

51
and non­maintaining of records is a misconduct.  MCI Regulation
1.3 deals with maintenance of medical records, which reads thus:
 “ 1.3 Maintenance of medical records :
1.3.1   Every   physician   shall   maintain   the   medical   records
pertaining to his / her indoor patients  for a period of 3 years from
the   date   of   commencement   of   the   treatment   in   a   standard
proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached
as Appendix 3.
1.3.2.   If   any   request   is   made   for   medical   records   either   by   the
patients / authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the
same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued
within the period of 72 hours.
1.3.3 A Registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register
of   Medical   Certificates   giving   full   details   of   certificates   issued.
When issuing a medical certificate he / she shall always enter the
identification   marks   of   the   patient   and   keep   a   copy   of   the
certificate.  He / She shall not omit to record the signature and/or
thumb mark, address and at least one identification mark of the
patient   on   the   medical   certificates   or   report.   The   medical
certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix 2.
1.3.4   Efforts   shall   be   made   to   computerize   medical   records   for
quick retrieval.”
(emphasis supplied)
54. Regulation   7.1   under   Chapter   7   deals   with   misconduct
committed   by   a   doctor   by   violating   any   provisions   of   the
Regulations,   whereas   Regulation   7.2   provides   that   the   failure   to
maintain   the   medical   records   of   indoor   patient   for   a   period   of
three years and refusal to provide the medical record to a patient
on   request   within   72   hours   is   a   misconduct.     Regulation   7.6
deals   with   misconduct   relating   to   sex   determination   and

52
termination of pregnancy.  The relevant portion of Regulation 7 is
reproduced hereunder:
“ 7. MISCONDUCT
The following acts of commission or omission on the part of
a   physician   shall   constitute   professional   misconduct   rendering
him/her liable for disciplinary action.
7.1   Violation   of   the   Regulations :   If   he/she   commits   any
violation of these Regulations.
7.2   If   he/she   does   not   maintain   the   medical   records   of   his/her
indoor   patients   for   a   period   of   three   years   as   per   regulation   1.3
and   refuses   to   provide   the   same   within   72   hours   when   the
patient or his/her authorised representative makes a request for
it as per the regulation 1.3.2.
*** *** ***
7.6 Sex Determination Tests : On no account sex determination
test shall be undertaken with the intent to terminate the life of a
female foetus developing in her mother’s womb, unless there are
other   absolute   indications   for   termination   of   pregnancy   as
specified in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Any
act   of   termination   of   pregnancy   of   normal   female   foetus
amounting   to   female   foeticide   shall   be   regarded   as   professional
misconduct on the part of the physician leading to penal erasure
besides   rendering   him   liable   to   criminal   proceedings   as   per   the
provisions of this Act.”
55. Regulation   8   of   the   MCI   Regulation   deals   with   punishment
and   disciplinary   action   for   misconduct   committed   by   a   doctor.
The relevant portion of Regulation 8 reads thus:
“ 8. PUNISHMENT AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION
8.1   It   must   be   clearly   understood   that   the   instances   of   offences
and   of   Professional   misconduct   which   are   given   above   do   not
constitute   and   are   not   intended   to   constitute   a   complete   list   of
the infamous acts which calls for disciplinary action, and that by
issuing   this   notice   the   Medical   Council   of   India   and   or   State
Medical   Councils   are   in   no   way   precluded   from   considering   and
dealing   with   any   other   form   of   professional   misconduct   on   the
part of a registered practitioner. Circumstances may and do arise
from time to time in relation to which there may occur questions
of   professional   misconduct   which   do   not   come   within   any   of
these categories. Every care should be taken that the code is not
violated in letter or spirit. In such instances as in all others, the

53
Medical   Council   of   India   and/or   State   Medical   Councils   have   to
consider   and   decide   upon   the   facts   brought   before   the   Medical
Council of India and/or State Medical Councils.
8.2   It   is   made   clear   that   any   complaint   with   regard   to
professional   misconduct   can   be   brought   before   the   appropriate
Medical   Council   for   Disciplinary   action.   Upon   receipt   of   any
complaint   of   professional   misconduct,   the   appropriate   Medical
Council   would   hold   an   enquiry   and   give   opportunity   to   the
registered   medical   practitioner   to   be   heard   in   person   or   by
pleader.   If   the   medical   practitioner   is   found   to   be   guilty   of
committing   professional   misconduct,   the   appropriate   Medical
Council   may   award   such   punishment   as   deemed   necessary   or
may  direct   the   removal   altogether   or  for  a  specified   period,   from
the register of the name of the delinquent registered practitioner.
Deletion   from   the   Register   shall   be   widely   publicized   in   local
press   as   well   as   in   the   publications   of   different   Medical
Associations/ Societies/Bodies.” 
56. It is further pointed out that Pharmacy Practice Regulations,
2015 also require pharmacists to maintain records.  The relevant
portion of the Regulations is extracted hereunder:
“ 6.2 Maintenance of patient records .—
(a)   Every   registered   pharmacist   shall   maintain   the   medical/
prescription  records  pertaining  to  his  /  her  patients  for  a  period
of   5   years   from   the   date   of   commencement   of   the   treatment   as
laid down by the Pharmacy Council of India in Appendix II.
(b)   If   any   request   is   made   for   medical   records   either   by   the
patients/authorised   attendant   or   legal   authorities   involved,   the
same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued
within the period of 72 hours.
(c)   Efforts   shall   be   made   to   computerize   medical/prescription
records for quick retrieval.”
57. Reference   has   also   been   made   to   the   provisions   of   the
Transplantation   of   Human   Organs   and   Tissues   Act,   1994   and
Rules,   which   contain   provisions   that   are   similar   to   the   Act.
Section 20 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues
Act, 1994, reads thus:

54
“ 20.  Punishment for contravention of any other provision of
this Act.—  Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or any
rule   made,   or   any   condition   of   the   registration   granted,
thereunder   for   which   no   punishment   is   separately   provided   in
this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to twenty
lakh rupees.”
58. Reference has also been made to the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy Act, 1971, which also places an obligation on medical
professional to maintain proper records.  
59. When   we   scrutinise   the   Form   ‘F’   with   the   provisions   of   the
Act/Rules and there cannot be any dispute with respect to serial
Nos.1   and   2   wherein   name   and   address   of   Genetic   Laboratory
and   its   registration   number   is   required   to   be   mentioned   in   the
Form as it is necessary to have a registration under Section 18 of
the   Act.     It   cannot   be   said   to   be   a   clerical   requirement.     Patient
name   and   her   age   at   serial   No.3   is   also   absolutely   necessary   so
as to identify a person who is undergoing the test and before the
age   of   35   years,   it   cannot   be   conducted   as   provided   under
Section 4(3)(i).  The same is as per the mandatory requirement of
Section 4.  Husband’s/father’s name is also necessary as per the
statutory   mandate   for   the   purpose   of   identification   of   patient.
Full address is also mandatory so as to ascertain the identity who
is   undergoing   such   test.     In   case   these   information   are   kept

55
vague,   the   violation   of   the   Act   would   be   blatant   and   unchecked
and offence can never be detected.   Information at serial No.8 of
the   Form   ‘F’   requires   last   menstrual   period/weeks   of   pregnancy
to   be   mentioned,   same   is   also   necessary   to   be   mentioned   as   it
has   co­relation   with   the   investigations   and   provisions   of   the   Act
and the rules framed thereunder.   The column in Form  at serial
No.9  requires  history  of   genetic/medical  disease in   the  family  to
be specified which is as per the mandate of Section 4(3)(iv) of the
Act.     Form   ‘F’   at   serial   No.10   requires   indication   for   pre­natal
diagnosis which is mandatory as per the provisions contained in
Section 4(2) as except for the purposes as mentioned in Sections
4(2) and 4(3) no such tests/procedures can be performed.  Thus,
what   is   mandated   by   the   Sections   and   in   Rule   9   has   been
mentioned in the Form ‘F’.  Procedure carried whether invasive or
non­invasive   has   to   be   obviously   mentioned   and   in   case   any
laboratory tests have been recommended that is to be mentioned
along with the result.  The note attached to Form ‘F’ also contains
the   representative   list   of   indications   when   ultrasound   during
pregnancy can be performed.   Thus, though the submission that
Form   ‘F’   is   clerical   requirement   urged   by   learned   counsel
appearing   for  the  petitioner­Society   appears  at  the  first  blush   to

56
be  worthy  examination,  but  on  close  scrutiny  it  is  found  that  in
case any information in the Form is avoided, it will result in the
blatant   violation   of   the   provisions   of   Section   4   and   may   lead   to
result which is prohibited under               Section 6.  It cannot be
said   to   be   a   case   of   clerical   error   as   doctor   has   to   fulfil   pre­
requisites   for   undertaking   the   procedure   in   case   the   conditions
precedent   for   undertaking   pre­natal   diagnostic   test   is   not
specifically   mentioned,   it   would   be   violative   of   provisions
contained   in   Section   4.     The   Form   ‘F’   has   to   be   prepared   and
signed by either Gynaecologist/Medical Geneticist / Radiologist /
Paediatrician / Director of the Clinic/Centre/Laboratory.  In case
the indications and the information are not furnished as provided
in   the   Form   ‘F’   it   would   amount   that   condition   precedent   to
undertake   the   test/procedure   is   absent.     There   is   no   other
barometer   except   Form   ‘F’   to   find   out   why   the   diagnostic
test/procedure   was   performed.     In   case   such   an   important
information   beside   others   is   kept   vague   or   missing   from   the
Form,   it   would   defeat   the   very   purpose   of   the   Act   and   the
safeguards provided thereunder and it would become impossible
to   check   violation   of   provisions   of   the   Act.     It   is   not   the   clerical
job   to   fill   the   form,   it   is   condition   precedent   for   undertaking

57
test/procedure.  With all due regards to the submission advanced
on   behalf   of   petitioner­Society   that   it   is   a   clerical   job,   is   wholly
without substance but it is a responsible job of the person who is
undertaking   such   a   test   i.e.,   the   Gynaecologist/   Medical
Geneticist/   Radiologist   /   Paediatrician   /   Director   of   the
Clinic/Centre/Laboratory   to   fill   the   requisite   information.     In
case he keeps it vague, he knows fully well that he is violating the
provisions of the Act and undertaking  the test without existence
of   the   conditions   precedent   which   are   mandatory   to   exist   he
cannot undertake test/procedure without filling such information
in   the   form.   There   is   no   other   way   to   ensure   that   test   is
undertaken   on   fulfilment   of   the   prescribed   conditions.     There   is
nothing else but the record which required to be maintained and
on   the   basis   of   which   counter­check   can   be   made.     There   is   no
other   barometer   or   criteria   to   find   out   the   violation   of   the
provisions of  the  Act.   Rule 9(4) also  requires that every  Genetic
Clinic to fill Form ‘F’ wherein information with regard to details of
the patient, referral notes with indication and case papers of the
patient   are   required   to   be   filled   and   preserved.     Form   ‘F’   lays
down   the   indicative   list   for   conducting   ultrasonography   during
pregnancy.     Form   ‘F’   being   technical   in   nature   gives   the   insight

58
into  the reasons  for  conducting  ultrasonography   and incomplete
Form   ‘F’   raises   the   presumption   of   doubt   against   the   medical
practitioner.   In the absence of Form ‘F’, Appropriate Authorities
will   have   no   tool   to   supervise   the   usage   of   ultrasound   machine
and shall not be able to regulate the use of the technique which
is the object of the Act.
60. It   is   rightly   contended   on   behalf   of   respondents   that   there
are   different   forms   for   record   keeping   prescribed   under   the   Act
and   the   Rules   they   are   important   and   interlinked,   operate   in
tandem  with one another.   These records have to be maintained
only   when   the   procedure   or   tests   are   conducted   on   pregnant
woman   or   when   patient   may   have   been   advised   to   use   pre­
conception diagnostic tools to conceive a child.   It is required for
Genetic   Counselling   Centre   advising   the   procedure/test   with   a
potential   of   detecting   or   determining   the   sex   of   the   foetus   and
referring   a   person   to   a   Genetic   Clinic/Imaging
Centre/Ultrasound   Clinic   to   record   the   details   of   Genetic   Clinic
to which patient is referred at point 15 of the Form ‘D’ along with
the   details   of   the   diagnosis   and   relevant   medical   details   of   the
person.     Accordingly,   Genetic   Clinic/Imaging   Centre/Ultrasound
Clinic  conducting  the  aforesaid  referred  procedure  has  to  record

59
the   name   and   address   of   Genetic   Counselling   Centre   with   the
referral slip along with the relevant medical record of the person
on whom procedure/test/technique is conducted.   The aforesaid
record   keeping   procedure   shall   be   followed   by   Genetic
Laboratories   also.     The   scheme   of   the   Act   makes   it   evident   that
record keeping is meant to track/monitor and regulate the use of
technology   that   has   potential   of   sex   selection   and   sex
determination.  Section 23 is not stand­alone Section.  It is rather
used   in   the   enforcement   of   other   provisions   of   the   Act   and
violations   of   Section   23   are   often   accompanied   by   violations   of
provisions of Sections 4, 5, 6 and 18 of the Act.   It is submitted
that   non­maintenance   of   record   in   the   context   of   sex
determination is not merely a technical or procedural lapse.  It is
most   significant   piece  of  evidence   for  identifying   offence   and   the
accused.     The   inspection   of   records   is   crucial   to   identify
wrong­doers   as   the   crime   of   sex   determination   being   a   collusive
crime   given   the   nexus   between   the   patients   and   the   doctors.
Accordingly,   punishment   is   provided   in   Section   23   for   not
maintaining the records.
61. Ms.   Pinki   Anand,   learned   Additional   Solicitor   General   has
relied upon a case study on record keeping as an implementation

60
tool of Prabhakar Hospital in Panipat.   In this case Hospital had
not   sent   the   report   of   IVF   done   at   its   Centre   to   the   Appropriate
Authority   despite   meeting   held   on   10.10.2013   and   subsequent
reminders.     After   thirteenth   reminder   dated   27.11.2014,   a   show
cause   notice   was   issued   to   the   Hospital   on   2.2.2015.     The
aforesaid case study reads thus:
“In the case of this Hospital  the report of  IVF done at  the centre
was   not   sent  to  the   Appropriate   Authority  despite   meetings   held
on   10.10.2013   and   reminders   sent   on   6.3.2014,   14.3.2014,
20.3.2014,   21.3.2014,   25.3.2014,   28.3.2014,   31.3.2014   and
finally with a thirteenth reminder on 27.11.2014.
During inspection following discrepancies were found­
a. In   form   no.9338,   In­vitro   Fertilization   (IVF)   was   done   on
patient   with   2   female   children   with   repeated   history   of
4  abortions.
b. In   form   no.9700,   woman   with   8   female   children   received
IVF.
c. In form  no.10385,  patient  Santosh   with  7  female  children
received   IVF   but   did   not   fill   the   section   C   in   F­Form .
Section C in form F pertains to the records of the invasive
procedures   which   requires   records   of   all   diagnostic
procedures   done   on   men   and   women   which   has   potential
of sex determination/selection to be recorded.
d. Form   no.10389,   woman   with   3   female   children   received
IVF, form F Section C not filled in.
e. Form   no.9338,   woman   had   2   female   children   and   6
abortions, and received IVF.
f. Form   no.9700,   a   woman   with   8   female   children   received
IVF.
The   hospital   was   asked   why   patients   who   had   female   children
underwent   IVF   as   evident   from   the   records.     In   several   of   the
cases   it   is   inexplicable   why   the   samples   were   sent   to   Delhi   and
Bombay.     In   many   F   forms   many   female   patients   with   wrong
phone   numbers   were   mentioned.     Similarly   in   other   Form   F,
patients with wrong identity proofs, address proof and no identity
proofs were found.    In another set of form F wrong Obstetric and
Abortion   history   was   mentioned   as   confirmed   from   the   patients.
Difference   history   on   referral   slip   and   Form   F   was   observed.
Signature of patient was found to be missing in the consent form
in many forms.   The Signature of the witness Doctor/Counsellor
was   missing   in   all   consent   forms   of   IVF  patients.     Accordingly  a
complaint has been filed in the court.”

61
(emphasis supplied)
62. It is submitted that the record keeping provide information
on individual patients who could have potentially undergone sex
selection/determination   techniques,   which   is   an   offence   under
this   Act.     If   record   keeping   is   diluted   or   exempted   from   the
mandatory   requirement   of   the   Act,   the   probable   involvement   in
sex   determination   and   sex   selection   in   the   guise   of   use   of
diagnostic techniques would continue unbated.
63. The   way   in   which   the   non­maintenance   of   record   can   be
used for violating the provisions of the Act, is apparent from the
aforesaid   example.     The   aforesaid   facts   have   been   mentioned   in
the   show   cause   notice   that   had   been   issued.     In   many   Form   ‘F’
female patients   with  wrong  phone  numbers  were  mentioned.   In
other Form ‘F’ patients with wrong identity, proof of address and
no   identity   proof   were   found.     In   another   set   of   Form   ‘F’   wrong
obstetric   and   abortion   history   was   mentioned.     Signature   of
patient was also found missing in the consent forms.   Thus, the
non­filling   of   information   cannot   be   termed   to   be   clerical   error,
but   in   case   it   is   kept   vague   that   itself   facilitates   an   offence.     It
would   definitely   a   blatant   and   intentional   violation   of   the
provisions   of   the   Act   in   order   to   prevent   the   mischief   which   is

62
intended   to   by   maintenance   of   record,   filling   up   details   of   the
forms   is   mandated   by   Sections   4   and   5.     The   wholesome   social
legislation   would   be   defeated   in   case   Form   is   not   filled   which   is
sine   qua   non   toto   undertake   tests/procedures   if   such   condition
does not exist, no such procedure can be performed and diluting
the provisions would be against the gender justice.   It is in order
to   create   the   equality   that  the   provisions   have  been  enacted   not
that unequals are being treated equally.  The non­maintenance of
form/not   reflecting   correct   medical   condition   is   offence,   not
mentioning it would also be an offence or keeping it vague.
64. It   was   pointed   on   behalf   of   petitioner­Society   by   filing
certain   affidavits   of   the   medical   practitioners   raising   grievances
with   regard   to   the   criminal   cases   filed   against   them   by   the
Appropriate   Authority   on   certain   grounds.     Acquittals   have   also
been   recorded,  but  they   are   not   attributable  to   the   deficiency   in
the Act.   The provision of the law cannot be struck down on the
ground   of   allegation   of   such   exercise   of   power   in   arbitrary
manner,   especially   when   0.46   million   girls   were   stated   to   be
missing at birth as a result of sex selective abortions.

63
65. In   Voluntary   Health   Association   of   Punjab   v.   Union   of   India ,
(2016) 10 SCC 265, this Court observed as under:
“46.   Now,   we   shall   advert   to   the   prayers   in   Writ   Petition   (Civil)
No.   575   of   2014.   The   writ   petition   has   been   filed   by   Indian
Medical Association (IMA). It is contended that Sections 3­A, 4, 5,
6, 7, 16, 17, 20, 23, 25, 27 and 30 of the Act and Rules 9(4), 10
& Form "F" (including foot­note),  which being  the subject  matter
of   concern   in   the   instant   writ   petition,   are   being   misused   and
wrongly interpreted by the authorities concerned thereby causing
undue   harassment   to   the   medical   professionals   all   over   the
country   under   the   guise   of   the   'so­called   implementation'.   It   is
also urged that, implementation of steps and scrutiny of records
was   started   at   large   scale   all   over   the   country   and   lot   of
anomalies   were   found   in   records   maintained   by   doctors
throughout   the   country.   It   is   however   pertinent   to   mention   here
that the majority of the defaults were of technical nature as they
were merely minor and clerical errors committed occasionally and
inadvertently in the filing of Form "F". It is also put forth that the
Act   does   not   classify   the   offences   and   owing   to   the   liberal   and
vague   terminology   used   in   the   Act,   it   is   thrown   open   for  misuse
by the implementing authorities concerned and has resulted into
taking   of   cognizance   of   non­bailable   (punishable   by   three   years)
offences   against   doctors   even   in   the   cases   of   clerical   errors,   for
instance non­mentioning of N.A. (Not Applicable) or leaving of any
column   in   the   Form   "F"   concerned   as   blank.   It   is   further
submitted   that   the   said   unfettered   powers   in   the   hands   of
implementing authority have resulted into turning of this welfare
legislation   into   a   draconian   novel   way   of   encouraging   demands
for  bribery as well as there is no  prior independent investigation
as mandated Under Section 17 of the Act by these Authorities. It
is also set forth that the Act states merely that any contravention
with   any   of   the   provisions   of   the   Act   would   be   an   offence
punishable   Under   Section   23(1)   of   the   said   Act   and   further   all
offences   under   the   Act   have   been   made   non­bailable   and   non­
compoundable   and   the   misuse   of   the   same   can   only   be   taken
care   of   by   ensuring   that   the   Appropriate   Authority   applies   its
mind to the fact of each case/complaint and only on satisfaction
of a prima facie case, a complaint be filed rather than launching
prosecution  mechanically  in   each  case.   With  these  averments,  it
has   been   prayed   for   framing   appropriate   guidelines   and
safeguard   parameters,   providing   for   classification   of   offences   as
well,   so   as   to   prohibit   the   misuse   of   the   PCPNDT   Act   during
implementation   and   to   read   down   this   Sections   6,   23,   27   of   the
PCPNDT   Act.   That   apart,   it   has   been   prayed   to   add   certain
provisos/exceptions   to   Sections   7,   17,   23   and   Rule   9   of   the
Rules.

64
47.   In our considered opinion, whenever there is an abuse of the
process   of   the   law,   the   individual   can   always   avail   the   legal
remedy .  As  we  find,   neither  the  validity  of  the   Act   nor the  Rules
has been specifically assailed in the writ petition. What has been
prayed   is   to   read   out   certain   provisions   and   to   add   certain
exceptions.   We   are   of   the   convinced   view   that   the   averments   of
the present nature with such prayers cannot be entertained and,
accordingly, we decline to interfere.”
(emphasis supplied)
66. The emphasis of this Court is on the proper maintenance of
records.     In   Centre   for   Enquiry   into   Health   and   Allied   Themes
(CEHAT) v. Union of India,  (2001) 5 SCC 577, this Court observed
thus:
  “3.   It   is   apparent   that   to   a   large   extent,   the   PNDT   Act   is   not
implemented   by   the   Central   Government   or   by   the   State
Governments.   Hence,   the   petitioners   are   required   to   approach
this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India……Prima
facie   it   appears   that   despite   the   PNDT   Act   being   enacted   by
Parliament   five   years   back,   neither   the   State   Governments   nor
the   Central   Government   has   taken   appropriate   action   for   its
implementation.   Hence,   after   considering   the   respective
submissions   made   at   the   time   of   hearing   of   this   matter,   as
suggested   by   the   learned   Attorney­General   for   India,   Mr   Soli   J.
Sorabjee,   the   following   directions   are   issued   on   the   basis   of
various   provisions   for   the   proper   implementation   of   the   PNDT
Act:
II. Directions to the Central Supervisory Board (CSB)
1. ***
2. ***
3.   CSB   shall   issue   directions   to   all   State/UT   appropriate
authorities to furnish quarterly returns to CSB giving a report on
the implementation and working of the Act. These returns should
inter alia contain specific information about:
(i) survey of bodies specified in Section 3 of the Act;
(ii) registration of bodies specified in Section 3 of the Act;
(iii)   action   taken   against   non­registered   bodies   operating   in
violation of Section 3 of the Act, inclusive of search and seizure of
records;

65
(iv)  complaints received by the  appropriate authorities under  the
Act and action taken pursuant thereto;
(v)   number   and   nature   of   awareness   campaigns   conducted   and
results flowing therefrom.….”
67. In   Voluntary  Health  Association  of   Punjab  v.  Union  of  India,
(2013) 4 SCC 1, the Court dealt with the issue of maintenance of
record and issued the following directions:
“9.4.   The   authorities   should   ensure   also   that   all   genetic
counselling   centres,   genetic   laboratories   and   genetic   clinics,
infertility  clinics,  scan centres  etc.  using  preconception and  pre­
natal   diagnostic   techniques   and   procedures   should   maintain   all
records   and   all   forms,   required   to   be   maintained   under   the   Act
and the Rules and the duplicate copies of the same be sent to the
district authorities concerned, in accordance with Rule 9(8) of the
Rules.
9.6.   There   will   be   a   direction   to   all   genetic   counselling   centres,
genetic   laboratories,   clinics   etc.   to   maintain   Forms   A,   E,   H   and
other   statutory   forms   provided   under   the   Rules   and   if   these
forms are not properly maintained, appropriate action should be
taken by the authorities concerned.”
68. The   High   Court   of   Gujarat   in   Suo   Motu   v.   State   of   Gujarat,
(2009) 1 Gujarat Law Reporter 64, dealt at length with the issue
of proper maintenance of record and observed as under:
“5.     A   conjoint   reading   of   the   above   provisions   would   clearly
indicate   a   well­knit   legislative   scheme   for   ensuring   a   strict   and
vigilant enforcement of  the provisions of the Act  directed against
female foeticide and misuse of pre­natal diagnostic techniques…. 
*** *** ***
7.     As   seen   earlier,   the   Act   and   the   Rules   made   thereunder
provide for an elaborate scheme to ensure proper implementation
of   the   relevant   legal   provisions   and   the   possible   loopholes   in
strict   and   full   compliance   are   sought   to   be   plugged   by   detailed
provisions for maintenance and preservation of records. In order
to   fully   operationalise   the   restrictions   and   injunctions   contained
in   the   Act   in   general   and   in   Secs.   4,   5   and   6   in   particular,   to
regulate   the   use   of   pre­natal   diagnostic   technique,   to   make   the
pregnant   woman   and   the   person   conducting   the   pre­natal
diagnostic   tests   and   procedures   aware   of   the   legal   and   other

66
consequences   and   to   prohibit   determination   of   sex,   the   Rules
prescribe   the   detailed   forms   in   which   records   have   to   be
maintained.  Thus,  the  Rules  are  made  and forms  are  prescribed
in aid of the Act and they are so important for implementation of
the   Act   and   for   prosecution   of   the   offenders,   that   any   improper
maintenance of such record is itself made equivalent to violation
of the provisions of Secs. 5 and 6, by virtue of the proviso to sub­
sec.   (3)   of  Sec.   4   of  the  Act.   It   must,   however,   be   noted   that   the
proviso would apply only in cases of ultra­sonography conducted
on   a   pregnant   woman.   And   any   deficiency   or   inaccuracy   in   the
prescribed   record   would   amount   to   contravention   of   the
provisions of Secs. 5 and 6 unless and until contrary is proved by
the   person   conducting   such   ultra­sonography.   The   deeming
provision   is   restricted   to   the   cases   of   ultra­sonography   on
pregnant women and the person conducting ultra­sonography is,
during   the   course   of   trial   or   other   proceeding,   entitled   to   prove
that the provisions of Secs. 5 and 6 were, in fact, not violated.
8.  It  needs   to  be  noted  that improper maintenance  of  the  record
has   also   consequences   other   than   prosecution   for   deemed
violation   of   Secs.   5   or   6.   Section   20   of   the   Act   provides   for
cancellation or  suspension  of registration of  Genetic  Counselling
Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic in case of breach of
the   provisions   of   the   Act   or   the   Rules.   Therefore,   inaccuracy   or
deficiency in maintaining the prescribed record shall also amount
to   violation   of   the   prohibition   imposed   by   Sec.   6   against   the
Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic
and   expose   such   clinic   to   proceedings   under  Sec.   20   of   the   Act.
Where, by virtue of the deeming provisions of the proviso to sub­
sec. (3) of Sec. 4, contravention of the provisions of Secs. 5 or 6 is
legally   presumed   and   actions   are   proposed   to   be   taken   under
Sec.   20,   the   person   conducting   ultra­sonography   on   a   pregnant
woman   shall   also   have   to   be   given   an   opportunity   to   prove   that
the   provisions   of   Secs.   5   or   6   were   not   violated   by   him   in
conducting   the   procedure.   Thus,   the   burden   shifts   on   to   the
person   accused   of   not   maintaining   the   prescribed   record,   after
any   inaccuracy   or   deficiency   is   established,   and   he   gets   the
opportunity to prove that the provisions of Secs. 5 and 6 were not
contravened   in   any   respect.   Although   it   is   apparently   a   heavy
burden, it is legal, proper and justified in view of the importance
of   the   Rules   regarding   maintenance   of   record   in   the   prescribed
forms   and   the   likely   failure   of   the   Act   and   its   purpose   if
procedural requirements were flouted. The proviso to sub­sec. (3)
of  Sec.   4  is   crystal   clear about  the   maintenance   of  the   record   in
prescribed   manner   being   an   independent   offence   amounting   to
violation   of   Secs.   5   or   6   and,   therefore,   the   complaint   need   not
necessarily also allege violation of the provisions of Secs. 5 or 6 of
the Act. A rebuttable presumption of violation of the provisions of
Secs.   5   or   6   will   arise   on   proof   of   deficiency   or   inaccuracy   in
maintaining the record in the prescribed manner and equivalence
with   those   provisions   would   arise   for   punishment   as   well   as   for
disproving  their  violation   by   the   accused   person.   That   being  the
scheme   of   these   provisions,   it   would   be   wholly   inappropriate   to
quash   the   complaint   leging   inaccuracy   or   deficiency   in

67
maintenance   of   the   prescribed   record   only   on   the   ground   that
violation of Secs. 5 or 6 of the Act was not alleged or made out in
the complaint. It would also be improper and premature to expect
or   allow   the   person   accused   of   inaccuracy   or   deficiency   in
maintenance   of   the   relevant   record   to   show   or   prove   that
provisions   of   Secs.   5   or   6   were   not   violated   by   him,   before   the
deficiency   or   inaccuracy   were   established   in   Court   by   the
prosecuting   agency   or   before   the   authority   concerned   in   other
proceedings.”
69. The Act enjoys a presumption  of constitutionality.   We find
no   violation   of   the   constitutional   principles.     The   problem   of
female   foeticide   is   worldwide   and   the   matters   of   common
knowledge,   reports   and   history   are   the   basis   of   the   legislation,
provisions of which cannot be termed to be illegal or arbitrary in
any   manner.     In   Namit   Sharma   v.   Union   of   India,   (2013)   1   SCC
745, this Court has laid down as under:
  “18.   The   principles   for   adjudicating   the   constitutionality   of   a
provision   have   been   stated   by   this   Court   in   its   various
judgments. Referring to these judgments and more particularly to
Ram Krishna Dalmia  v.  Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538
and   Budhan   Choudhry   v.   State   of   Bihar ,   AIR   1955   SC  191,   the
author   Jagdish   Swarup   in   his   book   Constitution   of   India   (2nd
Edn.,   2006)   stated   the   principles   to   be   borne   in   mind   by   the
courts   and   detailed  them as   follows:  ( Ram  Krishna  Dalmia  case ,
AIR pp. 547­48, para 11)
“( a )**
( b )   that   there   is   always   a   presumption   in   favour   of   the
constitutionality   of   an   enactment   and   the   burden   is   upon   him
who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression
of the constitutional principles;
( c ) that it must be presumed that the legislature understands and
correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that its laws are
directed   to   problems   made   manifest   by   experience   and   that   its
discriminations are based on adequate grounds;
( d )**
( e )   that   in   order   to   sustain   the   presumption   of   constitutionality
the   court   may   take   into   consideration   matters   of   common
knowledge,   matters   of   common   report,   the   history   of   the   times
and   may   assume   every   state   of   facts   which   can   be   conceived
existing at the time of legislation; and

68
( f )**”
70. The   petitioner   has   not   shown   which   of   the   entry   is   not
mandatory   in   the   form.     As   the   entries   are   mandatory   and   sine
qua   non   for   undertaking   a   test/procedure,   the   assertion   that
their   fundamental   rights   are   being   violated   by   not   providing
requisite information is not germane and is without substance.
71. The   Act   intends   to   prevent   mischief   of   female   foeticide   and
the declining sex ratio in India.  When such is the objective of the
Act   and   the   Rules   and   mischief   which   it   seeks   to   prevent,
violation   of   the   rights   under   Part   III   of   the   Constitution   is   not
found.  This Court in  Hamdard Dawakhana v. The Union of India,
AIR 1960 SC 554, has laid down the following principles:
“8.   Therefore,   when   the   constitutionality   of   an   enactment   is
challenged on the ground of violation of any of the articles in Part
III   of   the   Constitution,   the   ascertainment   of   its   true   nature   and
character   becomes   necessary   i.e.   its   subject   matter,   the   area   in
which it is intended to operate, its purport and intent have to be
determined.   In   order   to   do   so   it   is   legitimate   to   take   into
consideration all the factors such as history of the legislation, the
purpose  thereof,   the  surrounding  circumstances   and  conditions,
the   mischief   which   it   intended   to   suppress,   the   remedy   for   the
disease which the legislature resolved to cure and the true reason
for the remedy; Bengal Immunity co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, 1955­
2   SCR   603   at   pp.   632,   633   (   (S)   AIR   1955   SC   661   at   p.674);
R.M.D. Chamarbaughwala v. Union of India, 1957 SCR 930 at p.
936:   (   (S)   AIR   1957   SC   628   at   p.631);   Mahant   Moti   Das   v.   S.P.
Sahi, AIR 1959 SC 942 at p. 948.
9. Another principle which has to borne in mind in examining the
constitutionality of a statute is that it must be assumed that the
legislature   understands   and   appreciates   the   need   of   the   people
and   the   laws   it   enacts   are   directed   to  problems   which   are   made

69
manifest   by   experience   and   that   the   elected   representatives
assembled   in   a   legislature   enact   laws   which   they   consider   to   be
reasonable   for   the   purpose   for   which   they   are   enacted.
Presumption is, therefore, in favour of the constitutionality of an
enactment.   Charanjit   Lal   v.   Union   of   India,   1950   SCR   869:   (AIR
1951 SC 41); State of Bombay v. F.N. Bulsara, 1951 SCR 682 at
p. 708: (AIR 1951 SC 318 at p. 326); AIR 1959 SC 942.”
72. The mischief sought to be remedied is grave and the effort is
being made to meet the challenge to prevent the birth of the girl
child.   Whether Society should give preference to male child is a
matter of grave concern.  The same is violative of Article 39A and
ignores   the   mandate   of   Article   51A(e)   which   casts   a   duty   on
citizens to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.
When sex selection is prohibited by virtue of provisions of Section
6,   the   other   interwoven   provisions   in   the   Acts   to   prevent   the
mischief obviously their constitutionality is to be upheld. 
73. The provisions of MTP Act came up for consideration before
the High Court of Delhi in  Raj Bokaria v. Medical Council of India
(W.P. (C) No.795 of 2010), it observed:
 “11. On a reading of Section 5 of the MTP Act, it appears to this
Court   that   the   opinion   formed   by   the   medical   practitioner   to   go
for   either   MTP   or   pre­term   inducement   of   labour   when   the
pregnancy   is   beyond   20   weeks,   has   necessarily   to   be   in   writing
and in the prescribed format. There was no question of there not
being any record whatsoever of the forming of such opinion of the
medical   practitioner.   The   argument   advanced   by   Ms.   Acharya
that   in   a   case   of   emergency   there   may   be   no   time   for   recording
such   opinion   cannot   explain   the   failure   to   record   an   opinion   in
the   present   case.   The   facts   narrated   by   the   Petitioner   herself
show that a very conscious decision was taken of going for a pre­
term   inducement   of   labour   sometime   around   6th   October   2003
when   the   deceased   was   admitted   to   Respondent   No.   3   hospital.

70
Even at that time the opinion of the Petitioner should have been
recorded.   The   pre­term   induced   delivery   took   place   on   8th
October   2003.   There   was   sufficient   time,   therefore,   for   the
Petitioner to record her opinion, mandatorily required by Section
5(1).   In   terms   of   Rule   3(1)   of   the   Medical   Termination   of
Pregnancy   Regulations,   2003   the   medical   practitioner   has   to
record her opinion in Form I. The non­maintenance of records to
show the basis on which an opinion was formed to going in for a
pre­term   inducement   in   a   case   where   the   pregnancy   is   beyond
the   20th   week   is   indeed   a   very   serious   lapse.   There   can   be   no
excuse   whatsoever   for   a   medical   practitioner   seeking   to   defend
herself with reference to Section 5 of the MTP Act not maintaining
any record of the formation of the opinion in terms of Section 5(1)
read with the Regulations of 2003. In the considered view of this
Court, the above factor alone is enough to demonstrate the gross
negligence on the part of the Petitioner.”
(emphasis supplied)
74. On   behalf   of   petitioner­Society,   reliance   has   been   placed
regarding   mens   rea   on   Arun   Bhandari   v.   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh,
(2013) 2 SCC 801, wherein the Court observed as under:
“22.   In   G.V.   Rao   v.   L.H.V.   Prasad,(2000)   3   SCC   693,   this   Court
has held thus: (SCC pp. 696­97, para 7)
“7. As mentioned above, Section 415 has two parts. While
in   the   first   part,   the   person   must   ‘dishonestly’   or
‘fraudulently’   induce   the   complainant   to   deliver   any
property;   in   the   second   part,   the   person   should
intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to do a
thing.   That   is   to   say,   in   the   first   part,   inducement   must
be   dishonest   or   fraudulent.   In   the   second   part,   the
inducement   should   be   intentional.   As   observed   by   this
Court in Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay,
AIR   1956   SC   575,   a   guilty   intention   is   an   essential
ingredient   of   the   offence   of   cheating.   In   order,   therefore,
to   secure   conviction   of   a   person   for   the   offence   of
cheating,   ‘mens   rea’   on  the   part   of  that  person,   must   be
established.   It   was   also   observed   in   Mahadeo   Prasad   v.
State   of   W.B.,   AIR   1954   SC   724,   that   in   order   to
constitute the offence of cheating, the intention to deceive
should   be  in  existence  at  the   time  when   the  inducement
was offered.”
No sustenance can be drawn from the aforesaid decision as
keeping  the   information   blank   is   definitely   a   violation   of   the   Act

71
and   very   basic   fundamental   requisite   for   undertaking   the   test.
Thus,   when   form   has   not   been   filled   up,   obviously   the   act   is
dishonest, fraudulent and can be termed intentional also.   Such
case cannot be classified into clerical error.  
75. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this Court
in   Dr.   Subhash   Kashinath   Mahajan   v.   State   of   Maharashtra ,
(2018) 6 SCC  454, in which  this Court observed that the  Court
has   to   balance   the   right   of   liberty   of   the   accused   guaranteed
under   Article   21,   which   could   be   taken   away   only   by   just,   fair
and reasonable procedure and to check abuse of power by police
and injustice to a citizen.  Thus, some filters were required to be
incorporated   to   meet   the   mandate   of   Articles   14   and   21.     The
substantive as well as procedural laws must conform to Articles
14 and 21.   The expression procedure established by law under
Article 21 implies just, fair and reasonable procedure.  The court
to   make   purposive   interpretation   and   consider   the   doctrine   of
proportionality.  This Court has observed thus:
 “12.  The learned Amicus submitted that under the scheme of the
Atrocities   Act,   several   offences   may   solely   depend   upon   the
version   of   the   complainant   which   may   not   be   found   to   be   true.
There may not be any other tangible material. One sided version,
before trial, cannot displace the presumption of innocence. Such
version   may   at   times   be   self­serving   and   for   extraneous   reason.
Jeopardising liberty of a person on an untried unilateral version,
without   any   verification   or   tangible   material,   is   against   the
fundamental   rights   guaranteed   under   the   Constitution.   Before

72
liberty of a person is taken away, there has to be fair, reasonable
and   just   procedure.   Referring   to   Section   41(1)( b )   CrPC   it   was
submitted   that   arrest   could   be   effected   only   if   there   was
“credible” information and only if the police officer had “reason to
believe”   that   the   offence   had   been   committed   and   that   such
arrest   was   necessary.   Thus,   the   power   of   arrest   should   be
exercised   only   after   complying   with   the   safeguards   intended
under   Sections   41   and   41­A   CrPC.   It   was   submitted   that   the
expression “reason to believe” in Section 41 CrPC had to be read
in the light of Section 26 IPC and judgments interpreting the said
expression. The said expression was not on a par with suspicion.
Reference  has  been  made   in   this  regard   to   Joti  Parshad   v.   State
of   Haryana,   1993   Supp   (2)   SCC   497 ,   Badan   Singh   v.   State   of
U.P. ,   2001   SCC   OnLine   All   973,   Adri   Dharan   Das   v.   State   of
W.B. ,   (2005)   4   SCC   303,   Tata   Chemicals   Ltd.   v.   Commr.   of
Customs, (2015) 11 SCC 628  and  Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd.  v.
CIT,   (1981)   3   SCC   143 .   In   the   present   context,   to   balance   the
right of liberty of the accused guaranteed under Article 21, which
could be taken away only by just, fair and reasonable procedure
and to check abuse of power by police and injustice to a citizen,
exercise of right of arrest was required to be suitably regulated by
way of guidelines by this Court under Article 32 read with Article
141   of   the   Constitution.   Some   filters   were   required   to   be
incorporated   to   meet   the   mandate   of   Articles   14   and   21   to
strengthen the rule of law .
*** *** ***
31.   We may, at the outset, observe that jurisdiction of this Court
to   issue   appropriate   orders   or   directions   for   enforcement   of
fundamental   rights   is   a   basic   feature   of   the   Constitution.   This
Court,   as   the   ultimate   interpreter   of   the   Constitution,   has   to
uphold   the   constitutional   rights   and   values.   Articles   14,   19   and
21 represent the foundational values which form the basis of the
rule of law. Contents of the said rights have to be interpreted in a
manner which enables the citizens to enjoy the said rights. Right
to   equality   and   life   and   liberty   have   to   be   protected   against   any
unreasonable   procedure,   even   if   it   is   enacted   by   the   legislature.
The   substantive   as   well   as   procedural   laws   must   conform   to
Articles   14   and   21.   Any   abrogation   of   the   said   rights   has   to   be
nullified by this Court by appropriate orders or directions.   Power
of   the   legislature   has   to   be   exercised   consistent   with   the
fundamental   rights.   Enforcement   of   a   legislation   has   also   to   be
consistent  with the fundamental rights. Undoubtedly,  this Court
has   jurisdiction   to   enforce   the   fundamental   rights   of   life   and
liberty against any executive or legislative action.   The expression
“procedure established by law” under Article 21 implies just, fair
and reasonable procedure.
*** *** ***
53.   It is well settled that a statute is to be read in the context of
the   background   and   its   object.   Instead   of   literal   interpretation,
the   court   may,   in   the   present   context,   prefer   purposive
interpretation   to   achieve   the   object   of   law.   Doctrine   of
proportionality is well known for  advancing the object of Articles
14   and   21.   A   procedural   penal   provision   affecting   liberty   of

73
citizen  must  be  read  consistent  with  the  concept  of  fairness  and
reasonableness. ”
(emphasis supplied)
No sustenance can be drawn from aforesaid decision as the
procedure   under   the   Act   is   due   procedure   of   law   with   the
safeguards of not only of appeals under Section 21 and Rule 19,
but   there   is   a   State   Supervisory   Board   in   Section   16A.     The
constitution   of   multi­member   Appropriate   Authority   is   provided
in   Section   17(3)(a)   and   the   Advisory   Committee   as   provided   in
Section   17(6)   which   is   again   also   a   multi­member   Committee.
The   Advisory   Committee   has   to   aid   and   advise   the   Appropriate
Authority   in   discharge   of   its   functions.     Thus,   internal
safeguards are provided in the Act and the Rules which conform
to Articles 14 and 21.
76. Reliance   has   also   been   placed   on   Gian   Kaur   v.   State   of
Punjab ,   (1996)   2   SCC   648,   wherein   this   Court   dealt   with   the
provisions   of   right   to   die   within   the   ambit   of   Article   21.     While
discussing the aforesaid, this Court has observed thus:
  “43.   This   caution   even   in   cases   of   physician­assisted   suicide   is
sufficient  to  indicate that assisted suicides outside that category
have   no   rational   basis   to   claim   exclusion   of   the   fundamental
principles of sanctity of life.   The reasons assigned for attacking a
provision   which   penalises   attempted   suicide   are   not   available   to
the   abettor   of   suicide   or   attempted   suicide.   Abetment   of   suicide
or attempted suicide is a distinct offence which is found enacted
even   in   the   law   of   the   countries   where   attempted   suicide   is   not
made   punishable.   Section   306   IPC   enacts   a   distinct   offence

74
which   can   survive   independent   of   Section   309   in   the   IPC.   The
learned   Attorney   General   as   well   as   both   the   learned   amicus
curiae rightly supported the constitutional validity of Section 306
IPC.”
(emphasis supplied)
77. In   Subramanian   Swamy   v.   Union   of   India,   (2016)   7   SCC
221,   it   was   observed   that   restriction   that   goes   beyond   the
requirement   of   public   interest   cannot   be   considered   as   a
reasonable   restriction   and   would   be   arbitrary.       The   same
reasonableness   is   not   a   static   concept.     Articles   14   and   19   are
part   of   Article   21.     Misuse   of   a   provision   or   its   possibility   of
abuse   is   no   ground   to   declare   Section   499   IPC   as
unconstitutional.  If a provision of law is misused or abused, it is
for the Legislature  to  amend,  modify  or  repeal  it.
This Court has observed thus:
  “9.3.   Section   499   IPC   ex   facie   infringes   free   speech   and   it   is   a
serious   inhibition   on   the   fundamental   right   conferred   by   Article
19(1)( a )   and   hence,   cannot   be   regarded   as   a   reasonable
restriction   in   a   democratic   republic.   A   restriction   that   goes
beyond   the   requirement   of   public   interest   cannot   be   considered
as   a   reasonable   restriction   and   would   be   arbitrary.   Additionally,
when the provision even goes to the extent of speaking of truth as
an   offence   punishable   with   imprisonment,   it   deserves   to   be
declared   unconstitutional,   for   it   defeats   the   cherished   value   as
enshrined   under   Article   51­A( b )   which   is   associated   with   the
national   struggle   for   freedom.   The   added   requirement   of   the
accused having to prove that the statement made by him was for
the   public   good   is   unwarranted   and   travels   beyond   the   limits   of
reasonableness  because  the words  “public good” are  quite  vague
as   they   do   not   provide   any   objective   standard   or   norm   or
guidance as a consequence the provisions do not meet the test of
reasonable restriction and eventually they have the chilling effect
on the freedom of speech.

75
9.4.   “ Reasonableness”   is   not   a   static   concept,   and   it   may   vary
from time to time. What is considered reasonable at one point of
time   may   become   arbitrary   and   unreasonable   at   a   subsequent
point   of   time.   The   colonial   law   has   become   unreasonable   and
arbitrary   in   independent   India   which   is   a   sovereign,   democratic
republic and it is a well­known concept that provisions once held
to be reasonable, become unreasonable with the passage of time.
*** *** ***
10.3.   Reasonable   restriction   is   founded   on   the   principle   of
reasonableness   which   is   an   essential   facet   of   constitutional   law
and one of the structural principles of the Constitution is that if
the restriction invades and infringes the fundamental right in an
excessive   manner,   such   a   restriction   cannot   be   treated   to   have
passed   the   test   of   reasonableness.   The   language   employed   in
Sections   499   and   500   IPC   is   clearly   demonstrative   of
infringement   in   excess   and   hence,   the   provisions   cannot   be
granted   the   protection   of   Article   19(2)   of   the   Constitution.
Freedom   of   expression   is   quintessential   to   the   sustenance   of
democracy   which   requires   debate,   transparency   and   criticism
and dissemination of information and the prosecution in criminal
law   pertaining   to   defamation   strikes   at   the   very   root   of
democracy,   for   it   disallows   the   people   to   have   their   intelligent
judgment.   The   intent   of   the   criminal   law   relating   to   defamation
cannot   be   the   lone   test   to   adjudge   the   constitutionality   of   the
provisions   and   it   is   absolutely   imperative   to   apply   the   “effect
doctrine” for the purpose of understanding its impact on the right
of   freedom   of   speech   and   expression,   and   if   it,   in   the   ultimate
eventuality,   affects   the   sacrosanct   right   of   freedom,   it   is      ultra
vires    .  The basic concept of “effect doctrine” would not come in the
category of  exercise  of  power,   that is,  use  or  abuse  of  power  but
in   the   compartment   of   direct   effect   and   inevitable   result   of   law
that abridges the fundamental right.
*** *** ***
17.2.   Articles   14   and   19   have   now   been   read   to   be   a   part   of
Article 21 and, therefore, any interpretation of freedom of speech
under Article 19(1)(    a   ) which defeats the right to reputation under
Article   21   is   untenable.   The   freedom   of   speech   and   expression
under   Article   19(1)( a )   is   not   absolute   but   is   subject   to
constrictions under Article 19(2). Restrictions under Article 19(2)
have   been   imposed   in   the   larger   interests   of   the   community   to
strike   a   proper   balance   between   the   liberty   guaranteed   and   the
social interests specified under Article 19(2). One’s right must be
exercised   so   as   not   to   come   in   direct   conflict   with   the   right   of
another citizen. The argument of the petitioners that the criminal
law   of   defamation   cannot   be   justified   by   the   right   to   reputation
under   Article   21   because   one   fundamental   right   cannot   be
abrogated to advance another, is not sustainable. It is because ( i )
the right to reputation is not just embodied in Article 21 but also
built in  as a  restriction  placed  in  Article  19(2)  on  the freedom  of
speech in Article 19(1)( a ); and ( ii ) the right to reputation is no less
important a right than the right to freedom of speech.
*** *** ***

76
18.2.   Misuse   of   a   provision   or   its   possibility   of   abuse   is   no
ground   to   declare   Section   499   IPC   as   unconstitutional.   If   a
provision  of  law  is  misused  or  abused,  it  is for the  legislature  to
amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary. Mere possibility
of   abuse   of   a   provision   cannot   be   a   ground   for   declaring   a
provision procedurally or substantively unreasonable.
*** *** ***
76.   The   submission   is   that   Sections   499   and   500   IPC   are   not
confined to defamation of the State or its components but include
defamation   of   any   private   person   by   another   private   person
totally unconnected with the State . In essence, the proponement
is that the defamation of an individual by another individual can
be   a   civil   wrong   but   it   cannot   be   made   a   crime   in   the   name   of
fundamental   right   as   protection   of   private   rights   qua   private
individuals cannot be conferred the status of fundamental rights.
If, argued the learned counsel, such a pedestal is given, it would
be   outside   the   purview   of   Part   III   of   the   Constitution   and   run
counter to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It is urged
that   defamation   of   a   private   person   by   another   person   is
unconnected   with   the   fundamental   right   conferred   in   public
interest   by   Article   19(1)( a );   and   a   fundamental   right   is
enforceable   against   the   State   but   cannot   be   invoked   to   serve   a
private   interest   of   an   individual.   Elucidating   the   same,   it   has
been propounded that defamation of a private person by another
person  cannot be regarded as a “crime” under the constitutional
framework and hence, what is permissible is the civil wrong and
the remedy under the civil law. Section 499 IPC, which stipulates
defamation   of   a   private   person   by   another   individual,   has   no
nexus with the fundamental right conferred under Article 19(1)( a )
of   the   Constitution,   for   Article   19(2)   is   meant   to   include   the
public   interest   and   not   that   of   an   individual   and,   therefore,   the
said   constitutional   provision   cannot   be   the   source   of   criminal
defamation.   This   argument   is   built   up   on   two   grounds:   ( i )   the
common thread that runs through the various grounds engrafted
under Article 19(2) is relatable to the protection of the interest of
the   State   and   the   public   in   general   and   the   word   “defamation”
has to be understood in the said context, and ( ii ) the principle of
noscitur   a   sociis ,   when   applied,   “defamation”   remotely   cannot
assume   the   character   of   public   interest   or   interest   of   the   crime
inasmuch a crime remotely has nothing to do with the same.
*** *** ***
90.   In   R.   Sai   Bharathi      v.      J.   Jayalalitha ,   (2004)   2   SCC   9,   while
opining about crime, it has been observed as under: (SCC pp. 54­
55, para 56)
“ 56 .   Crime   is   applied   to   those   acts,   which   are   against
social   order   and   are   worthy   of   serious   condemnation.
Garafalo,   an   eminent   criminologist,   defined   “    crime    ”   in
terms of immoral and anti­social acts. He says that:
‘   crime is an immoral and harmful act that is regarded as
criminal   by   public   opinion   because   it   is   an   injury   to   so
much of the moral sense as is possessed by a community

77
— a measure which is indispensable for the adaptation of
the individual to society    ’.
The authors of the Indian Penal Code stated that:
‘… We cannot admit that a Penal Code is by any means to
be   considered   as   a   body   of   ethics,   that   the   legislature
ought   to   punish   acts   merely   because   those   acts   are
immoral,  or that, because an act is not punished at all, it
follows   that   the   legislature   considers   that   act   as
innocent.   Many   things   which   are   not   punishable   are
morally   worse   than   many   things   which   are   punishable .
The   man   who   treats   a   generous   benefactor   with   gross
ingratitude   and   insolence   deserves   more   severe
reprehension than the man who aims  a blow in passion,
or   breaks   a   window   in   a   frolic;   yet   we   have   punishment
for   assault   and   mischief,   and   none   for   ingratitude.   The
rich  man  who refuses  a mouthful of rice to save a fellow
creature   from   death   may   be   a   far   worse   man   than   the
starving   wretch   who   snatches   and   devours   the   rice;   yet
we  punish  the   latter  for theft,  and  we  do  not  punish  the
former for hard­heartedness. ’”
*** *** ***
96.   We   have   referred   to   this   facet   only   to   show   that   the
submission so astutely canvassed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners   that   treating   defamation   as   a   criminal   offence   can
have   no   public   interest   and   thereby   it   does   not   serve   any   social
interest or collective value is sans substratum.  We may hasten to
clarify   that   creation   of   an   offence   may   be   for   some   different
reason declared unconstitutional but it cannot be stated that the
legislature   cannot   have   a   law   to   constitute   an   act   or   omission
done by a person against the other as a crime. It depends on the
legislative   wisdom.   Needless   to   say,   such   wisdom   has   to   be   in
accord   with   constitutional   wisdom   and   pass   the   test   of
constitutional   challenge.   If   the   law   enacted   is   inconsistent   with
the   constitutional   provisions,   it   is   the   duty   of   the   Court   to   test
the law on the touchstone of the Constitution.
*** *** ***
122.  In  State of Madras  v.  V.G. Row , AIR 1952 SC 196, the Court
has   ruled   that   the   test   of   reasonableness,   wherever   prescribed,
should   be   applied   to   each   individual   statute   impugned   and   no
abstract   standard,   or   general   pattern   of   reasonableness   can   be
laid   down   as   applicable   to   all   cases.   The   nature   of   the   right
alleged   to   have   been   infringed,   the   underlying   purpose   of   the
restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to
be   remedied   thereby,   the   disproportion   of   the   imposition,   the
prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial
verdict .
*** *** ***
127.   In   Sahara   India   Real   Estate   Corpn.   Ltd.   v.   SEBI ,   (2012)   10
SCC  603,   this   Court   reiterated   the   principle   of   social   interest   in
the context of Article 19(2) as a facet of reasonable restriction. In
Dwarka  Prasad  Laxmi  Narain   v.   State of  U.P. ,   AIR  1954   SC 224,
while   deliberating   upon   “reasonable   restriction”   observed   that   it

78
connotes that the  limitation imposed upon a person in enjoyment
of   a   right   should   not   be   arbitrary   or   of   an   excessive   nature
beyond what is required in the interest of the public. It was also
observed   that   to   achieve   quality   of   reasonableness   a   proper
balance   between   the   freedom   guaranteed   under   Article   19(1)(    g   )
and the social control permitted by clause (6) of Article 19 has to
be struck.”
(emphasis supplied)
When   we   consider   the   aforesaid   dictum   and   apply   to   the
Act,   nothing   can   be   more   sinister,   immoral   and   anti­social   act
allowing   female   foeticide.     In   R.   Sai   Bharathi   v.   J.   Jayalalitha
(supra)   it   has   been   observed   that   crime   is   against   social   order,
immoral   and   harmful   act.     It   has   also   been   observed   by   this
Court   that   legislature   can   have   a   law   to   constitute   an   act   or
omission   done   by   a   person   against   the   other   as   a   crime.
Considering   the   evils   sought   to   be   remedied   it   cannot   be   said
that   the   imposition   in   the   Act   in   question   is   disproportionate.
The   restrictions   and   the   provisions   of   punishment   have   close
nexus with the object sought to be achieved.  It is not possible to
term action as merely clerical one as that is pre­requisite for the
test/procedure   and   that   is   what   is   intended   by   the   Act,   if   it   is
given a go­bye under the guise of clerical error, the Act would be
rendered otiose.   Restriction cannot be said to be excessive and
beyond what is required in the public interest, they cater to the

79
felt   need   of   the   society   and   the   complex   issues   facing   people
which the legislature intends to solve.
78. In   Shreya   Singhal   v.   Union   of   India,   (2015)   5   SCC   1,   the
Court   dealt   with   provisions   of   Section   66­A   of   Information
Technology Act, 2000.  This Court has observed thus:
55.   The   US   Supreme   Court   has   repeatedly   held   in   a   series   of
judgments   that   where   no   reasonable   standards   are   laid   down   to
define   guilt   in   a   section   which   creates   an   offence,   and   where   no
clear   guidance   is   given   to   either   law   abiding   citizens   or   to
authorities   and   courts,   a   section   which   creates   an   offence   and
which   is   vague   must   be   struck   down   as   being   arbitrary   and
unreasonable.   Thus,   in      Musser      v.      Utah    ,   92   L   Ed   562   a   Utah
statute   which   outlawed   conspiracy   to   commit   acts   injurious   to
public morals was struck down.
*** *** ***
59.   It  was  further held that  a  penal  law is  void  for vagueness  if it
fails   to   define   the   criminal   offence   with   sufficient   definiteness.
Ordinary   people   should   be   able   to   understand   what   conduct   is
prohibited   and   what   is   permitted.   Also,   those   who   administer  the
law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary
and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place.
*** *** ***
66.   In   Federal   Communications   Commission   v.   Fox   Television
Stations Inc. , 132 S Ct 2307 it was held: (S Ct p. 2317)
“A fundamental principle in our legal system is that laws
which regulate persons or entities must give fair notice of
conduct   that   is   forbidden   or   required.   See   Connally   v.
General   Construction   Co. ,   269   US   385,   US   391   (“[A]
statute   which   either   forbids   or   requires   the   doing   of   an
act   in   terms   so   vague   that   men   of   common   intelligence
must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application,   violates   the   first   essential   of   due   process   of
law”);   Papachristou   v.   Jacksonville ,   405   US   156,   US   162
{“Living under  a  rule  of  law  entails  various  suppositions,
one   of   which   is   that   ‘[all   persons]   are   entitled   to   be
informed   as   to   what   the   State   commands   or   forbids’”
[quoting   Lanzetta   v.   New   Jersey ,   306   US   451,   US   453
(alteration   in   original)]}.   This   requirement   of   clarity   in
regulation  is  essential   to  the  protections  provided   by  the
Due   Process   Clause   of   the   Fifth   Amendment .   See   United
States   v.   Williams ,   553   US   285,   US   304.   It   requires   the
invalidation   of   laws   that   are   impermissibly   vague.   A
conviction   or   punishment   fails   to   comply   with   due

80
process   if   the   statute   or   regulation   under   which   it   is
obtained “fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence
fair   notice   of   what   is   prohibited,   or   is   so   standardless
that   it   authorizes   or  encourages   seriously  discriminatory
enforcement.”      Ibid    .   As   this   Court   has   explained,   a
regulation   is   not   vague   because   it   may   at   times   be
difficult to prove an incriminating fact but rather because
it   is   unclear   as   to   what   fact   must   be   proved.   See      id.    ,   at
306.
Even when speech is not at issue, the void for vagueness
doctrine   addresses   at   least   two   connected   but   discrete
due process concerns: first, that regulated parties should
know   what   is   required   of   them   so   they   may   act
accordingly;   second,   precision   and   guidance   are
necessary so that those enforcing the law do not act in an
arbitrary or discriminatory way. See  Grayned  v.  Rockford ,
33   L   Ed   2d   222,   US   108­109.   When   speech   is   involved,
rigorous adherence to those requirements is necessary to
ensure that ambiguity does not chill protected speech.””
(emphasis supplied)
It   is   apparent   from   the   aforesaid   discussion   in   Shreya
Singhal  (supra) in a case where no reasonable standards are laid
down   to   define   guilt   in   a   section   which   creates   an   offence,   it
would   be   arbitrary   and   unconstitutional.     It   is   absolutely   clear
that   the   provisions   in   the   Act   in   question   cannot   be   termed   as
arbitrary   or   illegal   or   unreasonable.     The   provisions   are   not
vague.     A   responsible   doctor   is   supposed   to   know   before
undertaking   such   pre­natal   diagnostic   test   etc.   what   is   he
undertaking   and   what   his   responsibilities   are.     If   he   cannot
understand   the   form   he   is   required   to   fill   and   the   impact   of
medical findings   and its consequences which is virtually the pre­
requisite for undertaking a test, he is not fit to be a member of a

81
noble   medical   profession.     Such   culpable   negligence   is   not
warranted from  a doctor.   It is crystal clear  from  the provisions
of   the   Act   which   can   be   gathered   by   a   person   of   ordinary
intelligence   and   they   can   have   fair   notice   of   what   is   prohibited
and   what   omission   they   should   not   make.     The   principles
deliberated   upon   in   Shreya   Singhal   (supra)   rather   supports   the
constitutionality of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
79. The   reliance   has   also   been   placed   by   the   petitioner   in
Nikesh   Tarachand   Shah   v.   Union   of   India,   (2018)   11   SCC   1,   in
which Court observed thus:
“10.   On   the   other   hand,   the   learned   Attorney   General   Shri   K.K.
Venugopal   impressed   upon   us   the   fact   that   the   Parliamentary
legislation qua money laundering is an attempt by Parliament to get
back   money   which   has   been   siphoned   off   from   the   economy.
According  to   the   learned   Attorney   General,   scheduled   offences   and
offences   under   Sections   3   and   4   of   the   2002   Act   have   to   be   read
together   and   the   said   Act,   therefore,   forms   a   complete   code   which
must   be   looked   at   by   itself.   According   to   the   learned   Attorney
General,   it   is   well   settled   that   classification   which   is   punishment
centric has been upheld by  a catena of  judgments and so  have the
twin   conditions   been   upheld   by   various   decisions   which   were
referred to by him. According to him, the expression “any offence” in
Section   45(1)( ii )   would   mean   offence   of   a   like   nature   and   not   any
offence,   which   would   include   a   traffic   offence   as   well.   According  to
the learned Attorney General, Section 45 can easily be read down to
make  it  constitutional  in two ways. First, the expression “ there  are
reasonable   grounds   for   believing   that   he   is   not   guilty   of   such
offence” must be read as the making of a prima facie assessment by
the   court   of   reasonable   guilt.   Secondly,   according   to   the   learned
Attorney   General,   in   any   case   the   conditions   contained   in   Section
45(1)( ii ) are there in a different form when bail is granted ordinarily
insofar as offences generally are concerned and he referred to   State
of   U.P.   v.   Amarmani   Tripathi,   (2005)   8   SCC   21   for   this   purpose.
According   to   the   learned   Attorney   General,   if   harmoniously
construed   with   the   rest   of   the   Act,   Section   45   is   unassailable.   He
relied upon Section 24 of the Act, which inverts the burden of proof,

82
and   strongly   relied   upon   Gautam   Kundu   v.   Directorate   of
Enforcement,   (2015)   16   SCC   1   and   Rohit   Tandon   v.   Directorate   of
Enforcement,   (2018)   11   SCC   46 .   In   answer   to   Shri   Rohatgi’s
argument   on   the   object   of   the   2012   Amendment   Act,   according   to
the   learned   Attorney   General,   it   is   well   settled   that   where   the
language of the Act is plain, no recourse can be taken to the object
of the Act and he cited a number of judgments for this proposition.
He referred us to Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and argued
that   when   read   with   Section   24   of   the   2002   Act,   it   would   be   clear
that   the   twin   conditions   contained   in   Section   45   are   only   in
furtherance   of   the   object   of   unearthing   black   money   and   that   we
should,   therefore,   be   very   slow   to   set   at   liberty   persons   who   are
alleged   offenders   of   the   cancer   of   money   laundering.   Ultimately,
according to the learned Attorney General, Section 45 being part of
a complete code must be upheld in order that the 2002 Act work, so
that   money   that   is   laundered   comes   back   into   the   economy   and
persons responsible for the same are brought to book.
*** *** ***
46.   We must not forget that Section 45 is a drastic provision which
turns   on   its   head   the   presumption   of   innocence   which   is
fundamental to a person accused of any offence. Before application
of a section which makes drastic inroads into the fundamental right
of   personal   liberty   guaranteed   by   Article   21   of   the   Constitution   of
India,   we   must   be   doubly   sure   that   such   provision   furthers   a
compelling   State   interest   for   tackling   serious   crime.   Absent   any
such compelling State interest, the indiscriminate application of the
provisions   of   Section   45   will   certainly   violate   Article   21   of   the
Constitution.   Provisions   akin   to   Section   45   have   only   been   upheld
on   the   ground   that   there   is   a   compelling   State   interest   in   tackling
crimes of an extremely heinous nature.
*** *** ***
49.  The learned Attorney General relied heavily on Section 24 of the
2002   Act   to   show   that   the   burden   of   proof   in   any   proceeding
relating   to   proceeds   of   crime   is   upon   the   person   charged   with   the
offence of money laundering, and in the case of any other person i.e.
a   person   not   charged   with   such   offence,   the   court   may   presume
that such proceeds are involved in money laundering. Section 45 of
the   Act   only   speaks   of   the   scheduled   offence   in   Part   A   of   the
Schedule,   whereas   Section   24   speaks   of   the   offence   of   money
laundering,   and   raises   a   presumption   against   the   person
prosecuted   for   the   crime   of   money   laundering.   This   presumption
has   no   application   to   the   scheduled   offence   mentioned   in   Section
45, and cannot, therefore, advance the case of the Union of India.”
(emphasis supplied)
Considering   the   compelling   general   public   interest   and
gender  justice  and  declining  sex  ratio,  we  have  no  hesitation   in

83
upholding   the   validity   of   the   provisions   of   Section   23(1)   of   the
Act.
80. Reliance   has   also   been   placed   in   P.   Rathinam   v.   Union   of
India,   (1994) 3 SCC 394, this Court observed thus:
48.   The   aforesaid   show   that   law   has   many   promises   to   keep
including granting of so much of liberty as would not jeopardise the
interest   of   another   or   would   affect   him   adversely,   i.e.,   allowing   of
stretching of arm up to that point where the other fellow’s nose does
not begin .  For  this  purpose,  law  may  have  “miles  to  go”.   Then,  law
cannot be cruel, which it would be because of what is being stated
later, if persons attempting suicide are treated as criminals and are
prosecuted   to   get   them   punished ,   whereas   what   they   need   is
psychiatric treatment, because suicide basically is  a “call for  help”,
as stated by Dr (Mrs) Dastoor, a Bombay Psychiatrist, who heads an
organisation called “Suicide Prevent”. May it be reminded that a law
which is cruel violates Article 21 of the Constitution,   a la,   Deena   v.
Union of India, (1983) 4 SCC 645 .
*** *** ***
51.   A crime presents these characteristics: (1) it is a harm, brought
about   by   human   conduct   which   the   sovereign   power   in   the   State
desires to prevent; (2) among the measures of prevention selected is
the threat of punishment; and (3) legal proceedings of a special kind
are   employed   to   decide   whether   the   person   accused   did   in   fact
cause   the   harm,   and   is,   according   to   law,   to   be   held   legally
punishable   for   doing   so.   ( See   pp.   1   to   5   of   Kenny’s   Outlines   of
Criminal Law , 19th Edn., for the above propositions.)
(emphasis supplied)
81. We   find   that   Act   intends   not   to   jeopardise   the   female
foetus.     As   such   curtailment   of   the   liberty   in   cause   of   such   a
violation cannot be said to be disproportionate.
82 . Reliance has also  been placed on   State  of  Uttar Pradesh v.
Wasif Haider,   (2019) 2 SCC 303, in which it has been laid down

84
that an offence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.   The
relevant portion of the decision is extracted hereunder:  
“22.  In  the  instant appeals  before  us,  the  prosecution  has  failed  to
link   the   chain   of   circumstances   so   as   to   dispel   the   cloud   of   doubt
about the culpability  of the respondent­accused.  It is  a  well­settled
principle   that   a   suspicion,   however   grave   it   may   be   cannot   take
place   of   proof   i.e.   there   is   a   long   distance   between   "may   be"   and
"must be", which must be traversed by the prosecution to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt [See Narendra Singh v. State of M.P.,
(2004) 10 SCC 699].”
There is no  dispute with  the aforesaid proposition, but that
is not  the question before us.   When  trial takes place obviously
the   commission   of   the   offence   has   to   be   proved   as   required
under the relevant applicable law.
83. There can be a legislative provision for imposing burden of
proof   in   reverse   order   relating   to   gender   justice.     In   the   light   of
prevalent   violence   against   women   and   children,   the   Legislature
has   enacted   various   Acts,   and   amended   existing   statutes,
reversing   the   traditional   burden   of   proof.   Some   examples   of
reversed burden of proof in statutes include Sections 29 and 30
of  the   Protection  of  Children   from  Sexual   Offences  (POCSO)   Act
in   which   there   is   presumption   regarding   commission   and
abetment of certain offences under the Act, and presumption of
mental state of  the  accused respectively. In Sections  113­A and
113­B of the Indian Evidence Act there is presumption regarding

85
abetment   of   suicide   and   dowry   death,   and   in   Section   114­A   of
the   Indian   Evidence   Act   there   is   presumption   of   absence   of
consent of prosecutrix in offence of rape.
84. These   provisions   are   a   clear   indication   of   the   seriousness
with   which   crimes   against   women   and   children   have   been
viewed   by   the   Legislature.     It   is   also   evident   from   these
provisions that due to the pervasive nature of these crimes, the
Legislature   has   deemed   it   fit   to   employ   a   reversed   burden   of
proof in  these cases. The presumption in the  proviso to  Section
4(3) of the Act has to be viewed in this light.
85. The Act is a social welfare legislation, which was conceived
in   light   of   the   skewed   sex­ratio   of   India   and   to   avoid   the
consequences of the same. A skewed sex­ratio is likely to lead to
greater   incidences   of   violence   against   women   and   increase   in
practices   of   trafficking,   ‘bride­buying’   etc.     The   rigorous
implementation of the Act is an edifice on which rests the task of
saving the girl child.
86. In   view   of   the   aforesaid   discussion   and   in   our   opinion,   no
case   is   made   out   to   hold   that   deficiency   in   maintaining   the
record mandated by Sections 5, 6 and the proviso to Section 4(3)

86
cannot   be   diluted   as   the   aforesaid   provisions   have   been
incorporated   in  various   columns  of   the   Form   ‘F’   and   as  already
held that it would not be a case clerical mistake but absence of
sine   qua   non   for   undertaking   a   diagnostic   test/procedure.     It
cannot be said to be a case of clerical or technical lapse.  Section
23(1)   need   not   have   provided   for   gradation   of   offence   once
offence   is   of   non­maintenance   of   the   record,   maintenance   of
which itself intend to prevent female foeticide.   It need not have
graded   offence   any   further   difference   is   so   blur   it   would   not   be
possible   to   prevent   crime.     There   need   not   have   been   any
gradation  of   offence  on   the   basis   of   actual   determination  of   sex
and non­maintenance of record as undertaking the test without
the  pre­requisites is totally  prohibited under  the Act.   The non­
maintenance of record is very foundation of offence. For first and
second   offences,   gradation   has   been   made   which   is   quite
reasonable.
87. Provisions   of   Section   23(2)   has   also   been   attacked   on   the
ground   that   suspension   on   framing   the   charges   should   not   be
on   the   basis   of   clerical   mistake,   inadvertent   clerical   lapses.     As
we   found   it   is   not   what   is   suggested   to   be   clerical   or   technical
lapse nor it can be said to be inadvertent mistakes as existence

87
of   the   particular   medical   condition   is   mandated   by   Sections   4
and   5   including   the   age   etc.     Thus,   suspension   on   framing   of
charges cannot be said to be unwarranted.  The same intends to
prevent mischief. We are not going into the minutes what can be
treated as a simple clerical mistake that has to be seen case wise
and no categorization can be made of such mistakes, if any, but
with respect to what is mandatory to be provided in the Form as
per provisions of various sections has to be clearly mentioned, it
cannot   be   kept   vague,   obscure   or   blank   as   it   is   necessary   for
undertaking   requisite   tests,   investigations   and   procedures.
There   are   internal   safeguards   in   the   Act   under   the   provisions
relating   to   appeal,   the   Supervisory   Board   as   well   as   the
Appropriate   Authority,   its   Advisory   Committee   and   we   find   that
the   provisions   cannot   be   said   to   be   suffering   from   any   vice   as
framing   of   the   charges   would   mean   prima   facie   case   has   been
found by the Court and in that case, suspension cannot be said
to be unwarranted. 
88. It   was   also   prayed   that   action   should   be   taken   under
Section   20   after   show   cause   notice   and   reasonable   opportunity
of  being  heard.   There is already  a provision  in  Section  20(1) to
issue  a   show   cause  and   in   Section   20(2)  contains  the  provision

88
as   to   reasonable   opportunity   of   being   heard.     Thus,   we   find   no
infirmity in the aforesaid provision.
89. There also the Appropriate Authority to consider each case
on merits with the help of Advisory Body which has legal expert.
The   Advisory   Committee   consists   of   one   legal   expert   which   has
to   aid   and   advise   the   Appropriate   Authority   as   provided   in
Sections 16 and 17(5)(6).  Thus, the submission that legal advice
should   be   taken   before   prosecution,   in   view   of   the   provisions,
has no legs to stand.
90. It   was   also   contended   that   action   of   seizure   of
ultrasonography   machine   and   sealing   the   premises   cannot   be
said to be appropriate.  The submission is too tenuous and liable
to   be   rejected.     Section   30   of   the   Act   enumerates   the   power   of
search and seizure and Rules 11 and 12 of the Rules provide for
the   power   of   the   Appropriate   Authority   to   seal   equipment,
inspect   premises   and   conduct   search   and   seizure.     It   was
pointed   out   by   the   respondents   that   a   “Standard   Operational
Procedure”,   detailing   the   procedure   for   search   and   seizure   has
been   developed   by   the   Ministry   of   Health   and   Family   Welfare.
Further,   regular   training   of   Appropriate   Authorities   is   being
carried   out   at   both   the   National   and   State   level.     All   the   States

89
have also been directed to develop online MIS for monitoring the
implementation   of   the   Act.   It   is   settled   proposition   that   when
offence   is   found   to   be   committed,   there   can   be   seizure   and
sealing of the premises and equipment during trial as no license
can be given to go on committing the offence.  Such provisions of
seizure/sealing,   pending   trial   are   to   be   found   invariably   in
various   penal   legislations.     The   impugned   provisions   contained
in   the   Act   constitute   reasonable   restrictions   to   carry   on   any
profession   which   cannot   be   said   to   be   violative   of   Right   to
Equality   enshrined   under   Article   14   or   right   to   practise   any
profession under  Article 19(1)(g).   Considering the Fundamental
Duties under Article 51A(e) and considering that female foeticide
is most inhumane act and results in reduction in sex ratio, such
provisions   cannot   be   said   to   be   illegal   and   arbitrary   in   any
manner besides there are various safeguards provided in the Act
to prevent arbitrary actions as discussed above.  
91. In   light   of   the   nature   of   offences   which   necessitated   the
enactment   of   the   Act   and   the   grave   consequences   that   would
ensue otherwise, suspension  of registration under  Section  23(2)
of the Act serves as a deterrent. The individual cases cited by the
petitioner­Society   cannot   be   a   ground   for   passing   blanket

90
directions,   and   the   individuals   have   remedies   under   the   law
which   they   can   avail.   Moreover,   the   concept   of   double   jeopardy
would   have   no   application   here,   as   it   provides   that   a   person
shall   not   be   convicted   of   the   same   offence   twice,   which   is
demonstrably   not   the   case   here.   Suspension   is   a   step­in­aid   to
further   the   intendment   of   act.     It   cannot   be   said   to   be   double
punishment.  In case an employee is convicted for an offence, he
cannot   continue   in   service   which   can   be   termed   to   be   double
jeopardy.
92. Non maintenance of record is spring board 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.   In
addition,   any   breach   of   the   provisions   of   the   Act   or   its   Rules
would   attract   cancellation   or   suspension   of   registration   of
Genetic   Counselling   Centre,   Genetic   Laboratory   or   Genetic

91
Clinic,   by   the   Appropriate   Authority   as   provided   under   Section
20 of the Act.
93. There   is   no   substance   in   the   submission   that   provision   of
Section   4(3)   be   read   down.   By   virtue   of   the   proviso   to   Section
4(3),   a   person   conducting   ultrasonography   on   a   pregnant
woman,   is   required   to   keep   complete   record   of   the   same   in   the
prescribed manner and any deficiency or inaccuracy in the same
amounts   to   contravention   of   Section   5   or   Section   6   of   the   Act,
unless the contrary is proved by the person conducting the said
ultrasonography.     The   aforementioned   proviso   to   Section   4(3)
reflects   the   importance   of   records   in   such   cases,   as   they   are
often   the   only   source   to   ensure   that   an   establishment   is   not
engaged in sex­determination.
94. Section   23   of   the   Act,   which   provides   for   penalties   of
offences,   acts   in   aid   of   the   other   Sections   of   the   Act   is   quite
reasonable.   It   provides   for   punishment   for   any   medical
geneticist,   gynecologist,   registered   medical   practitioner   or   a
person who owns a Genetic Counselling Centre, a Genetic Clinic
or   a   Genetic   Laboratory,   and   renders   his   professional   or
technical   services   to   or   at   said   place,   whether   on   honorarium

92
basis or otherwise and contravenes any provisions of the Act, or
the Rules under it.
95. Therefore, dilution of the provisions of the Act or the Rules
would   only   defeat   the   purpose   of   the   Act   to   prevent   female
foeticide,   and   relegate   the   right   to   life   of   the   girl   child   under
Article 21 of the Constitution, to a mere formality. 
 
96. In view of the above, no case is made out for striking down
the proviso to Section 4(3), provisions of Sections 23(1), 23(2) or
to read down Section 20 or 30 of the Act.   Complete contents of
Form   ‘F’   are   held   to   be   mandatory.     Thus,   the   writ   petition   is
dismissed. No costs.
.……......................J.
(Arun Mishra)   
.……......................J.
(Vineet Saran)   
New Delhi;
May 03, 2019