Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the challenged PCPNDT Act provisions and rejected blanket decriminalisation of deficient Form F records as clerical lapses. Complete Form F contents were mandatory safeguards against sex determination. The Section 4(3) proviso created a rebuttable presumption, not automatic guilt without proof of deficiency. Suspension of a practitioner’s registration upon framing of charges was upheld as a preventive measure. Individual grievances remained subject to statutory remedies.
Issues
- Whether deficient Form F records could be excluded from penal consequences as merely clerical errors.
- Whether the Section 4(3) presumption and Sections 23(1) and 23(2) were unconstitutional.
- Whether Sections 20 and 30 required reading down.
Provisions considered
- Proviso to Section 4(3), Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994Required complete prescribed ultrasonography records; established deficiency or inaccuracy attracted a rebuttable presumption of contravention of Section 5 or 6. (¶¶ 40, 68, 92–93)
- Sections 23(1) and 23(2), Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994Penalties for contravention and suspension upon framing of charges were upheld; no separate lesser category for mandatory record omissions was constitutionally required. (¶¶ 47, 86–87, 91, 94–96)
- Section 20, Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994The existing show-cause and reasonable-opportunity safeguards defeated the demand for reading down clinic-registration sanctions. (¶¶ 45, 88, 92)
- Rule 9 and Form F, Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996Complete Form F contents were mandatory; record keeping was an essential substantive safeguard. (¶¶ 52, 86–87, 92–96)
Held
- Mandatory medical particulars could not be left blank, vague or obscure under the description of clerical mistakes. The Court declined to categorise every possible simple clerical error, which required case-specific consideration. (¶¶ 59–63, 86–87)
- The Section 4(3) proviso applied to ultrasonography on a pregnant woman after deficiency or inaccuracy was established; the person conducting it could prove the contrary. Reading down that safeguard was unwarranted. (¶¶ 68, 83–84, 93)
- The challenged restrictions and penalties had a close nexus with preventing female foeticide and protecting the girl child. The provisions were neither vague nor constitutionally disproportionate. (¶¶ 69–72, 77–81, 90, 94–95)
- Framing of charges signified a judicial prima facie case, justifying registration suspension under Section 23(2). That preventive measure did not amount to double jeopardy; individual cases did not justify blanket directions. (¶¶ 87, 91)
- The Act already contained hearing, appellate and advisory safeguards. The Court refused to strike down the challenged provisions or read down Sections 20 and 30, and held complete Form F contents mandatory. (¶¶ 88–90, 96)
Result
Writ petition dismissed without costs. Challenges to the proviso to Section 4(3) and Sections 23(1) and 23(2), and requests to read down Sections 20 and 30, rejected. Complete contents of Form F held mandatory.