Top Court Says Accurate Record Maintenance Is Mandatory to Prevent Female Foeticide
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that maintaining complete and accurate Form F records under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) is mandatory, upholding criminal proceedings against a Maharashtra-based doctor accused of maintaining deficient records.
A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed the doctor’s appeal and upheld the decisions of the Judicial Magistrate, Revisional Court, and the Bombay High Court, which had allowed prosecution under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act.
Incomplete Records Amount to Violation of Law
The Supreme Court observed that proper record maintenance is an integral part of the PCPNDT Act and is essential for achieving its objective of preventing female foeticide and sex-selective practices.
The Court held that deficiencies or inaccuracies in Form F records amount to a contravention of the Act, reiterating that there is no ambiguity regarding the mandatory nature of record keeping.
“The keeping of records is essential to the Act and its avowed purpose,” the Court observed, adding that incomplete or inaccurate documentation cannot be treated as a mere procedural lapse.
Court Highlights Need for Strict Enforcement
Emphasising the broader social purpose behind the legislation, the Supreme Court stated that welfare-oriented laws like the PCPNDT Act must be enforced strictly until gender equality becomes a reality.
The Bench observed that continued enforcement of the law is necessary to combat female foeticide and discriminatory social attitudes, expressing hope that one day society will no longer question whether a girl child deserves to be born.
Background of the Case
The case involved a doctor operating a registered sonography centre in Maharashtra. During an inspection conducted by the competent authority under the PCPNDT Act, officials searched the centre, seized the ultrasound machine, and issued a notice seeking an explanation for alleged violations.
Following a hearing before the Advisory Committee, authorities found prima facie evidence of violations under the Act. Consequently, the sonography centre’s registration was suspended, and the ultrasound machine was seized in March 2016.
Subsequently, a complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ardhapur. The Magistrate issued process against the doctor under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act for alleged violations of Sections 4(3), 5, 6, and 29 of the Act, along with Rules 8(5), 9, and 18(9) of the PCPNDT Rules.
Although the doctor’s registration and ultrasound machine were later restored through separate proceedings, the Supreme Court clarified that those issues were not under consideration in the present appeal.
Doctor’s Defence Rejected
Before the Supreme Court, the doctor argued that the District Civil Surgeon was not the competent authority under the Act and contended that the deficiencies in Form F were merely technical or inadvertent errors without any criminal intent.
The Court rejected these arguments, noting that the Bombay High Court had already relied on the Maharashtra Government’s notification appointing the District Civil Surgeon as the Appropriate Authority under the PCPNDT Act.
The High Court had also ruled that errors in maintaining mandatory records cannot be treated as trivial, as proper documentation forms the backbone of the Act’s regulatory framework.
Supreme Court Refers to Earlier Landmark Judgment
The Bench also relied on its earlier observations in Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of India, where the Court had described female foeticide as a consequence of deeply rooted social prejudices and discriminatory mindsets.
Referring to its recent judgment in Naresh Kumar Garg (Dr.) v. State of Haryana, the Court reiterated that the statutory framework governing Form F and record maintenance leaves no room for dilution or casual compliance.
Why This Judgment Matters
The ruling reinforces that healthcare professionals operating ultrasound and prenatal diagnostic centres must maintain Form F records with complete accuracy. The Supreme Court has made it clear that deficiencies in statutory documentation are not minor procedural irregularities but may attract criminal prosecution under the PCPNDT Act, strengthening enforcement against illegal sex determination practices and female foeticide.
