Court
Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Case: Dr. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 9574 of 2018
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 635
Date of Judgment: 11 June 2026
Judgment By: Justice Sanjay Karol
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-doctor and upheld the orders by which cognizance was taken against him under the PCPNDT Act. The Court held that the appeal was “bereft of merit” and found no reason to interfere with the order issuing process. The Court reiterated that maintenance of complete and accurate Form F records is mandatory and deficiencies in such records cannot be brushed aside as mere technical or inadvertent errors.
Facts
The appellant, Dr. Ramesh, challenged the judgment of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, which had rejected his challenge to the cognizance order dated 9 June 2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ardhapur in RCC No. 16 of 2016.
The Trial Court had issued process under Section 204 CrPC for offences punishable under Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 for alleged violations of Sections 4(3), 5, 6 and 29 of the Act and Rules 9, 8(5) and 18(9).
An authority had conducted a search, seized the appellant’s sonography equipment, and issued notice under Section 20(1) of the PCPNDT Act calling upon him to explain the alleged violations. The appellant appeared before the Advisory Committee on 22 March 2016. The Committee found prima facie material regarding PCPNDT violations, following which suspension of the sonography centre and seizure of the machine were ordered on 23 March 2016.
However, the Supreme Court noted that the seizure of the machine and suspension of registration were no longer in issue because the machine had already been released in favour of the appellant and registration had also been restored.
Issues
Whether the Magistrate was correct in taking cognizance against the appellant under the PCPNDT Act.
Whether the District Civil Surgeon was competent to act as the Appropriate Authority under the Act.
Whether errors or blanks in Form F could be treated as merely technical or inadvertent mistakes, not warranting criminal process under the PCPNDT Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant argued that the Civil Surgeon was not the Appropriate Authority under the PCPNDT Act and, therefore, the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance on the basis of such proceedings.
It was further argued that the defects or blanks in Form F were merely technical and inadvertent mistakes. According to the appellant, they were not backed by any intention to violate the Act.
Another contention raised earlier was that maintenance and updating of records was the responsibility of the hospital staff and not the appellant personally.
Respondent’s Arguments / Court-Noted Position
The proceedings were defended on the basis that the District Civil Surgeon had been made the Appropriate Authority under the Act through notification dated 15 May 2015.
It was also contended, and accepted by the courts below, that errors in maintaining PCPNDT records are not trivial because proper record maintenance lies at the heart of the statutory scheme. The High Court had held that the extent and manner of violations were matters for trial.
Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the object of the PCPNDT Act and emphasized that the statute exists to prevent sex selection and female foeticide. The Court began the judgment by referring to the joy of motherhood on the birth of a daughter and observed that the objective of the PCPNDT Act is to enable a woman to experience that joy.
The Court referred to Section 4(3) of the Act, which requires the person conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman to keep complete records in the prescribed manner. The proviso to Section 4(3) specifically states that any deficiency or inaccuracy in such record amounts to contravention of Sections 5 or 6 unless the contrary is proved by the person conducting ultrasonography.
The Court also referred to Section 5, which deals with written consent of the pregnant woman and prohibition on communicating the sex of the foetus, Section 6, which prohibits determination of sex, Section 23, which prescribes offences and penalties, and Section 28, which governs cognizance of offences.
Precedent
The Supreme Court relied on Voluntary Health Assn. of Punjab v. Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 1, where the Court had strongly condemned female foeticide and observed that destruction of a female foetus affects future generations and creates serious social problems.
The Court also relied heavily on Federation of Obstetrics & Gynaecological Societies of India v. Union of India, (2019) 6 SCC 283, where it was held that non-maintenance of records is not merely a clerical error but a springboard for commission of the offence of foeticide. In that decision, the Supreme Court had held that complete contents of Form F are mandatory.
The Court also referred to Naresh Kumar Garg (Dr.) v. State of Haryana, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 295, where the scheme of the PCPNDT Rules had been discussed.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that the law and earlier judicial interpretation leave no room for doubt that keeping proper records is essential to the functioning and purpose of the PCPNDT Act.
The Court rejected the idea that errors or blanks in Form F can be lightly ignored. It observed that dilution of the law or allowing infractions to slide cannot be countenanced, especially because the PCPNDT Act is a welfare-oriented legislation aimed at preventing sex selection and protecting the girl child.
The Court also discussed sex-ratio data, noting that although there has been improvement, the progress remains incomplete and uneven. It referred to NFHS data, Census/SRS figures, Civil Registration System data, and various Central and State schemes such as Beti Bachao Beti Padhao, Janani Suraksha Yojana, Sukanya Samriddhi Account, Balika Samriddhi Yojana and other girl-child protection schemes. The Court used this broader social context to underline that strict enforcement of the PCPNDT Act remains necessary.
On the competence of the Civil Surgeon, the Court noted that the High Court had relied on the notification dated 15 May 2015, by which the District Civil Surgeon was made the Appropriate Authority under the Act. Therefore, the proceedings could not be invalidated on that ground.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the cognizance proceedings against the appellant. It held that the challenge to the Magistrate’s order had no merit.
The Court did not hold the appellant guilty at this stage; it only upheld the taking of cognizance and issuance of process. The allegations regarding violations of the PCPNDT Act are matters to be examined in trial.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that doctors and ultrasound clinics must maintain Form F records with complete accuracy. Missing entries, blanks or deficiencies cannot be casually defended as technical errors.
The ruling strengthens strict enforcement of the PCPNDT Act and confirms that record-keeping under the Act is not a mere administrative formality but a statutory safeguard against sex selection and female foeticide.
It also makes clear that courts will not dilute welfare legislation meant to protect the girl child merely because sex-ratio indicators have shown some improvement.