Dr Rameshv.State of Maharashtra and Another

Legal Analysis: Dr. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Citation: 2026 INSC (forthcoming) – Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9574 of 2018

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Date of Decision: June 11, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 9574 of 2018 against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench dated [not specified] in CrWP No. 1363 of 2017.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant, a doctor, challenged the order taking cognizance under Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) for alleged violations of Sections 4(3), 5, 6 and 29 of the Act and Rules 9, 8(5) and 18(9). The appellant argued that the Civil Surgeon was not the Appropriate Authority and that errors or blanks in Form 'F' were merely technical and inadvertent. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that: (i) the notification dated 15th May 2015 validly made the District Civil Surgeon the Appropriate Authority; (ii) non-maintenance of records in Form 'F' is not a trivial matter – it is the springboard for commission of the offence of foeticide; (iii) the proviso to Section 4(3) creates a presumption of contravention if records are deficient, unless the contrary is proved; (iv) the Act serves the constitutional objective of protecting the girl child under Article 21; (v) the declining sex ratio, though improving, still remains below the biologically expected level, warranting strict enforcement. The Court upheld the magistrate’s order taking cognizance, holding that the extent and manner of violations are questions of trial.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Dr. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Citation: 2026 INSC (forthcoming)

Criminal Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9574 of 2018

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Date of Decision: June 11, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Judgment and order dated [not specified] of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench in CrWP No. 1363 of 2017, dismissing the challenge to the order taking cognizance dated 9th June 2016 in RCC No. 16 of 2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ardhapur.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) – Section 2(a) (definition of Appropriate Authority), Section 4(3) (regulation of pre-natal diagnostic techniques – proviso creates presumption that deficiency/inaccuracy in record amounts to contravention of Sections 5 or 6), Section 5 (written consent of pregnant woman and prohibition of communicating sex of foetus), Section 6 (determination of sex prohibited), Section 20 (suspension of registration), Section 23 (offences and penalties), Section 28 (cognizance of offences – complaint by Appropriate Authority or authorised officer), Section 29 (maintenance of records), Section 32 (rule-making power).

• Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 – Rule 9 (maintenance of Form F), Rule 8(5), Rule 18(9).

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 204 (issuance of process), Section 482 (inherent powers – not directly invoked).

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 (right to life of the girl child – extends to protection from foeticide).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

• Voluntary Health Assn. of Punjab v. Union of India (2013) 4 SCC 1 – Female foeticide crucifies a woman of the future; sex ratio affects social stability; no awareness campaign is complete without focus on women empowerment.

• Federation of Obstetrics & Gynaecological Societies of India v. Union of India (2014) 11 SCC 681 – Non-maintenance of record is springboard for commission of offence of foeticide, not just a clerical error; complete contents of Form F are mandatory; dilution of provisions would defeat the purpose of the Act.

• Naresh Kumar Garg (Dr.) v. State of Haryana (2025) SCC OnLine SC 105 – Discussed the scheme of the PCPNDT Rules, 1996.

• Suo Motu v. State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) – Echoed similar position on mandatory maintenance of records.

• Sai v. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) – Same position.

3. Relevant Facts

The appellant, Dr. Ramesh, was a doctor operating a sonography centre. An Authority (the Civil Surgeon) conducted a search and seized equipment belonging to the appellant and issued a notice under Section 20(1) of the PCPNDT Act calling upon him to offer an explanation. Pursuant to letter dated 18th March 2016, the appellant appeared before the Advisory Committee on 22nd March 2016. After hearing him, the Committee concluded that prima facie material existed for violations under the PCPNDT Act. The suspension of the sonography centre and seizure of the sonography machine were ordered by communication dated 23rd March 2016 (the seizure was later challenged and the machine was released and registration restored – not in issue before the Supreme Court).

Proceedings before the Trial Court were initiated on 28th April 2016. The Magistrate took cognizance on 9th June 2016 and issued process under Section 204 CrPC for offences punishable under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act for violation of Sections 4(3), 5, 6 and 29 of the Act and Rules 9, 8(5) and 18(9).

The appellant filed Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2016, which was dismissed on 21st August 2017. The appellant then filed a writ petition before the High Court (CrWP No. 1363 of 2017), challenging the cognizance order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Civil Surgeon was the Appropriate Authority under the notification dated 15th May 2015, and that errors in maintaining records were not trivial but substantive offences. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

4. Issues

Issue No. 1: Whether the Civil Surgeon was the Appropriate Authority under the PCPNDT Act to initiate proceedings, given that the notification dated 15th May 2015 designated the District Civil Surgeon as the Appropriate Authority.

Issue No. 2: Whether the errors or blanks in Form 'F' (record maintenance) were merely technical and inadvertent, or whether they constitute a substantive offence warranting cognizance under Section 23 of the Act.

Issue No. 3: Whether the Magistrate was correct in taking cognizance and issuing process under Section 204 CrPC.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. The Civil Surgeon was the Appropriate Authority under the notification (Para 7).

The appellant contended that the Civil Surgeon was not the Appropriate Authority under the Act. The High Court, and the Supreme Court, took note of the notification dated 15th May 2015 which made the District Civil Surgeon the Appropriate Authority. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the Civil Surgeon were in accordance with law.

B. Maintenance of Form 'F' records is mandatory; deficiencies are not trivial (Paras 10-14).

The Court quoted extensively from Federation of Obstetrics & Gynaecological Societies of India where it was held that non-maintenance of record is the springboard for commission of the offence of foeticide, not just a clerical error. The proviso to Section 4(3) creates a presumption that any deficiency or inaccuracy in the record amounts to contravention of Sections 5 or 6 (prohibition on sex determination and communication of sex), unless the contrary is proved by the person conducting the ultrasonography. The complete contents of Form F are mandatory. The Court held that the errors or blanks in Form F were not a trivial matter; compromises in maintaining the record are offensive to the scope of the Act. The extent and manner of violations are questions of trial and must be determined in such proceedings. The Magistrate was correct in taking cognizance.

C. The PCPNDT Act serves a constitutional purpose under Article 21 (Paras 9, 15-16).

The Court recalled the words of the poem "Balika ka parichay" and the scriptural value "yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra devata" (where women are worshipped, gods reside). It noted the historical decline in the child sex ratio from 945 in 1991 to 919 in 2011, and the partial recovery to 929 at birth in recent surveys. While the sex ratio has shown improvement, it remains below the biologically expected level of 950 or higher. The World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report 2025 ranked India 131 out of 148. The Court held that the integrity and strict enforcement of the PCPNDT Act remain essential until there is a widespread change in mentality and true equality is achieved. The Act is a welfare legislation aimed at preventing female foeticide and protecting the right to life of the girl child under Article 21.

D. The appeal was dismissed (Para 17).

The Court found the appeal bereft of merit and dismissed it. The order taking cognizance was upheld.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• The proviso to Section 4(3) of the PCPNDT Act places the burden of proof on the person conducting ultrasonography to show that any deficiency or inaccuracy in Form F was not intentional and does not amount to contravention of Sections 5 or 6. This is a reverse onus provision justified by the difficulty of proving sex selection directly.

• Non-maintenance of records under the PCPNDT Rules is not a technical or clerical error; it is a substantive offence that strikes at the root of the statutory scheme to prevent female foeticide.

• The decline in sex ratio, even if showing improvement, does not justify complacency. The courts must continue to enforce the PCPNDT Act strictly until the child sex ratio reaches biologically expected levels and the social preference for male children is eliminated.

• The District Civil Surgeon can be validly designated as the Appropriate Authority under the PCPNDT Act by a State Government notification.

7. Court’s Examination and Analysis

The Court began by quoting Subhadra Kumari Chauhan's poem "Balika ka parichay" to celebrate the joy of a mother upon the birth of a daughter, and the scriptural verse "yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra devata" to emphasise the value of women. It noted that the objective of the PCPNDT Act is to enable a woman to feel that joy.

The Court then examined the factual background: the search, the notice, the appellant's appearance before the Advisory Committee, and the initiation of proceedings. It noted that the seizure of the machine was not in issue as it had been released.

On the first contention (competence of Civil Surgeon), the Court referred to the notification dated 15th May 2015 and held that the Civil Surgeon was the Appropriate Authority.

On the second contention (errors in Form F), the Court extensively quoted from Federation of Obstetrics & Gynaecological Societies of India and held that the proviso to Section 4(3) creates a presumption of contravention. The complete contents of Form F are mandatory. The Court observed that the errors were not trivial and that the matter must go to trial to determine the extent and manner of violations.

The Court then placed the case in the broader context of sex ratio and gender discrimination. It cited census data, NFHS-5, and the Global Gender Gap Report 2025 to demonstrate that while the situation has improved, much remains to be done. The Court noted that several states still report sex ratios at birth below the national average, indicating the continued prevalence of sex selection practices. The Court concluded that strict enforcement of the PCPNDT Act remains essential.

The appeal was dismissed.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a strong reaffirmation of the constitutional and social importance of the PCPNDT Act. It correctly holds that non-maintenance of records is not a technicality but a substantive offence that facilitates female foeticide. The reliance on Federation of Obstetrics & Gynaecological Societies of India is appropriate and consistent. The Court’s use of statistical data (census, NFHS, Global Gender Gap Report) to demonstrate the continuing need for strict enforcement is commendable. The judgment also correctly interprets the proviso to Section 4(3) as placing the burden of proof on the doctor, which is necessary given the clandestine nature of sex selection.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not discuss the appellant’s argument that the errors were inadvertent in any detail; it merely states that the extent and manner of violations are questions of trial. While this is correct, a more detailed analysis of what constitutes a "deficiency or inaccuracy" that triggers the presumption could have provided guidance to lower courts. However, the Court’s reliance on Federation of Obstetrics (which held that all contents of Form F are mandatory) provides sufficient guidance. Another concern is that the judgment does not address whether the appellant had an opportunity to rebut the presumption under the proviso to Section 4(3) before the Magistrate took cognizance. However, the Court correctly held that the matter must go to trial, where the appellant can lead evidence to prove that the deficiencies were not intentional and did not amount to contravention.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in all PCPNDT cases where doctors argue that errors in Form F are technical. It reinforces that Form F must be filled completely and accurately; any deficiency will be presumed to be a contravention of Sections 5 and 6, shifting the burden to the doctor to prove otherwise. It also confirms that the District Civil Surgeon can act as the Appropriate Authority. The judgment will strengthen enforcement actions under the PCPNDT Act.

9. Final Outcome

The Criminal Appeal was dismissed.

• The order taking cognizance dated 9th June 2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ardhapur in RCC No. 16 of 2016 was upheld.

• The judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench in CrWP No. 1363 of 2017 was affirmed.

• The appellant was directed to face trial for offences under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act for violation of Sections 4(3), 5, 6 and 29 of the Act and Rules 9, 8(5) and 18(9).

• Pending applications stood disposed of.

10. Practical Application

For doctors and sonography centre owners: Form F must be filled completely and accurately with no blanks or deficiencies. Every column must be addressed. If you leave a column blank or provide inaccurate information, you will be presumed to have contravened Sections 5 and 6 of the PCPNDT Act (prohibition on sex determination and communication of sex). The burden will be on you to prove that the deficiency was not intentional and did not facilitate sex selection. Maintain proper records, ensure all patient details are recorded, and ensure that the declaration of the pregnant woman (Section D of Form F) is properly signed.

For Appropriate Authorities (District Civil Surgeons): You have the power to initiate proceedings under the PCPNDT Act. If you find deficiencies in Form F during inspection, you can issue notice under Section 20(1) and recommend prosecution. Ensure that you act promptly and that the notification designating you as Appropriate Authority is properly in place. After the judgment in Federation of Obstetrics, you can rely on the presumption under the proviso to Section 4(3) to argue that the doctor must explain the deficiencies.

For magistrates taking cognizance under Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act: When a complaint is filed by the Appropriate Authority, you are not required to conduct a detailed inquiry into whether the deficiencies were intentional. The proviso to Section 4(3) creates a presumption. You can take cognizance if the complaint discloses a prima facie case of deficiency or inaccuracy in Form F. The question of whether the doctor can rebut the presumption is a matter of trial.

For lawyers defending doctors in PCPNDT cases: After this judgment, you cannot argue that errors in Form F are merely technical. The burden is on your client to prove that the deficiency did not amount to contravention of Sections 5 or 6. You must lead evidence to show that the deficiency was inadvertent, that no sex determination was conducted, and that the records can be corrected. Your client should have contemporaneous notes and patient records to support his defence. If the patient was not pregnant or if the ultrasound was for a legitimate medical indication, ensure that those indications are properly recorded in Section B of Form F.

For courts trying PCPNDT offences: Follow the two-stage process: (i) at the stage of cognizance, if the complaint by the Appropriate Authority shows deficiencies in Form F, take cognizance; (ii) at trial, the doctor may lead evidence to rebut the presumption. The court must consider the doctor's explanation and weigh whether the deficiencies were intentional or inadvertent. If the doctor proves that no sex determination was conducted and that the deficiency was a genuine oversight, the court may acquit. However, the burden is on the doctor.

11.  Court Lines

Line 1 (Objective of the Act – Para 2-3):
"The objective of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 is to enable a woman to feel the joy that has been described above [in the poem 'Balika ka parichay']."

Line 2 (Female foeticide as crucifixion – Para 9, quoting Voluntary Health Assn.):
"All involved in female foeticide deliberately forget to realise that when the foetus of a girl child is destroyed, a woman of the future is crucified."

Line 3 (Non-maintenance of record as springboard – Para 13, quoting Federation of Obstetrics):
"Non-maintenance of record is springboard for commission of offence of foeticide, not just a clerical error."

Line 4 (Mandatory contents of Form F – Para 13):
"Complete contents of Form F are held to be mandatory."

Line 5 (Presumption under Section 4(3) proviso – Para 10):
"Any deficiency or inaccuracy found therein shall amount to contravention of provisions of section 5 or section 6 unless contrary is proved by the person conducting such ultrasonography."

Line 6 (Continuing need for enforcement – Para 16):
"The integrity and strict enforcement of welfare-oriented legislation such as the PCPNDT Act remain essential along with efforts continued and earnest, till the time there is a widespread change in mentality... when true equality will dawn."

Line 7 (Dismissal of appeal – Para 17):
"The appeal, in view of the cumulative assessment above, is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed."

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For a doctor facing prosecution under the PCPNDT Act: Immediately upon receiving a notice from the Appropriate Authority, do not ignore it. Respond with a detailed explanation. If Form F has blanks or deficiencies, admit the deficiency but explain why it occurred. Gather evidence to rebut the presumption: (i) patient records showing the medical indication for the ultrasound (Section B of Form F); (ii) the patient's declaration that she did not want to know the sex of the foetus (Section D); (iii) affidavits from the patient and her relatives that no sex determination was communicated; (iv) expert evidence that the ultrasound was for a legitimate purpose. If you have been prosecuted, engage a lawyer who specialises in PCPNDT cases. At trial, lead evidence to prove that the deficiency was inadvertent and did not amount to a contravention of Sections 5 or 6. If you are convicted, the penalty includes imprisonment up to three years and fine up to Rs.10,000 for the first offence, and suspension of registration by the State Medical Council.

For an Appropriate Authority (Civil Surgeon): When you inspect a sonography centre, meticulously document all deficiencies in Form F. Prepare a complaint under Section 28(1)(a) of the PCPNDT Act. The complaint should list each deficient column and explain why it amounts to a contravention of Sections 4(3), 5, or 6. You do not need to prove that sex determination actually occurred; the proviso to Section 4(3) creates a presumption. After the complaint is filed, the magistrate will take cognizance. You may also recommend suspension of registration under Section 20. Ensure that you have the notification designating you as the Appropriate Authority.

For a magistrate: When a complaint is filed under Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act by the Appropriate Authority, examine whether the complaint discloses deficiencies or inaccuracies in Form F. If it does, take cognizance and issue process under Section 204 CrPC. You are not required to conduct a mini-trial on whether the deficiency was intentional. The proviso to Section 4(3) creates a presumption; the doctor can rebut it at trial. Do not dismiss the complaint on the ground that the doctor might have a defence. The extent and manner of violations are questions of trial.

For a lawyer representing a doctor: Do not focus solely on the technicality of the errors. Argue that the presumption under the proviso to Section 4(3) is rebuttable. At trial, lead evidence to show that the doctor had no intention to determine sex, that the ultrasound was for a legitimate medical indication, and that the deficiency was a genuine oversight (e.g., the form was partially filled due to workload, but the patient's records are complete). If you can produce the patient's declaration (Section D of Form F) and evidence that the patient was not informed of the sex, you may succeed. Also, argue that the offence is one of strict liability only to the extent of the presumption; if the doctor proves due diligence, he should be acquitted.

For a High Court hearing a revision or writ petition against cognizance: After this judgment, you should not quash cognizance orders on the ground that the errors in Form F were technical. The Supreme Court has held that the complete contents of Form F are mandatory. If the magistrate has taken cognizance based on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority that discloses deficiencies in Form F, the order is valid. The doctor’s remedy is to face trial and rebut the presumption. Only if the complaint does not disclose any deficiency at all (i.e., Form F is fully and accurately filled) can you quash the proceedings.

For a social organisation or NGO working on gender issues: You can file a complaint under Section 28(1)(b) of the PCPNDT Act after giving 15 days’ notice to the Appropriate Authority. The court may, on your demand, direct the Appropriate Authority to make available copies of relevant records. After this judgment, you can rely on the presumption under Section 4(3) to argue that any deficiency in Form F is a prima facie contravention. You can also move the court for expeditious trial of PCPNDT cases, as the Act serves a constitutional purpose.

For a legal researcher or law student: This judgment is a significant interpretation of the PCPNDT Act, particularly the proviso to Section 4(3). It clarifies that the burden of proof shifts to the doctor once a deficiency in Form F is shown. This is an exception to the general principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The justification is the difficulty of proving sex selection directly and the serious social harm caused by female foeticide. The judgment also demonstrates how courts use statistical data (census, NFHS, Global Gender Gap Report) to inform their reasoning on social issues. It is an example of judicial notice of empirical facts.