SC Calls for Strict Enforcement of Sex-Selection Ban

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Dr. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2026), dismissed the appeal of a Maharashtra doctor challenging criminal proceedings initiated against him under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act).  

• The Court held that deficiencies in mandatory statutory records maintained at a sonography centre are not mere technical or inadvertent lapses, and that welfare legislation such as the PCPNDT Act must continue to be enforced strictly, given the persistence of sex-selection practices and patriarchal preferences for a male child across India.

What was the Background of Dr. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The appellant was a doctor running a sonography centre in Maharashtra. 
• Authorities found alleged deficiencies in records maintained under the PCPNDT Act at his centre, including errors and blank entries in Form F — the statutory record prescribed under the PCPNDT Rules for every prenatal diagnostic procedure and ultrasound examination, which records patient details, pregnancy details, medical indications, and declarations regarding non-disclosure of foetal sex. 
• A Judicial Magistrate First Class took cognisance of offences under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act for alleged violations of Sections 4(3), 5, 6, and 29 of the Act along with the relevant Rules. 
• Before the Bombay High Court, the doctor contended that the Civil Surgeon who initiated proceedings was not the competent "Appropriate Authority" under the Act, and that the deficiencies in Form F were merely technical and inadvertent. 
• The High Court rejected both submissions, holding that the State Government had by notification designated the District Civil Surgeon as the Appropriate Authority, and that record-keeping deficiencies were substantive offences under the proviso to Section 4(3) whose extent and nature would be examined at trial. 
• The doctor then approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On persistence of sex-selection practices: The Court observed that while several indicators, including the overall sex ratio, have improved over the years, the country's progress remains incomplete and uneven. It noted that the sex ratio at birth stood at only 929 females per 1,000 males as against an overall sex ratio of 1,020 females per 1,000 males recorded in NFHS-5. Several States continue to report sex ratios at birth below the national average, reflecting the continuing presence of deep-seated patriarchal preferences towards a male child. 
• On historical trend of declining sex ratio: The Court referred to census data showing a fall from 945 girls per 1,000 boys in 1991 to 927 in 2001, and further to 919 in 2011. While the sex ratio at birth improved from 896 females per 1,000 males during 2015–17 to 918 females per 1,000 males during 2022–24, the Court emphasised that this remained below the biologically expected level of around 950 or higher. 
• On India's global gender parity standing: The Court referred to the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report 2025, which recorded a fall in India's overall gender parity ranking from 129 to 131 among 148 countries, reinforcing that the battle for gender equality remained far from complete. 
• On government schemes and continuing necessity of enforcement: The Court acknowledged Central and State government initiatives such as Beti Bachao Beti Padhao, Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana, and Janani Suraksha Yojana as reflections of sustained efforts to eradicate systemic bias against the girl child. However, it held that the available data did not support any relaxation in enforcement of the PCPNDT Act. 
• On the legal position regarding record maintenance: The Court reiterated the settled legal position from its earlier decision in Federation of Obstetrics & Gynaecological Societies of India v. Union of India, wherein it was held that non-maintenance of records is not a mere clerical lapse but a springboard for commission of the offence of foeticide. Proper records are often the only means by which authorities can ensure that diagnostic facilities are not being used for illegal sex determination. 
• On strict enforcement of welfare legislation: The Court held that even though the sex ratio has shown improvement, diluting the provisions of the PCPNDT Act or allowing infractions to go unpunished cannot be countenanced. It observed that the Act must remain strictly enforced until there is a widespread change in mentality and true equality is achieved. 
• Finding no reason to interfere with the orders of the Magistrate and the High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

What is the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994? 

About: 

• An Act of the Parliament of India enacted to stop female foeticides and arrest the declining sex ratio in India. 
• The Act bans prenatal sex determination.

Objectives: 

• To ban the use of sex selection techniques before or after conception. 
• To prevent the misuse of prenatal diagnostic techniques for sex-selective abortion.

Provisions: 

• Regulates the use of pre-natal diagnostic techniques such as ultrasound, permitting their use only to detect genetic abnormalities, metabolic disorders, chromosomal abnormalities, certain congenital malformations, haemoglobinopathies, and sex-linked disorders. 
• No laboratory, centre, or clinic shall conduct any test including ultrasonography for the purpose of determining the sex of the foetus. 
• No person shall communicate the sex of the foetus to the pregnant woman or her relatives by words, signs, or any other method. 
• Advertisement of pre-natal and pre-conception sex determination facilities through any medium — print, electronic, hoarding, wall painting, or otherwise — is punishable with imprisonment up to three years and a fine of ₹10,000.

Offences Under the Act: 

• Conducting or aiding prenatal diagnostic techniques in unregistered facilities. 
• Sex selection on a man or woman. 
• Performing prenatal diagnostic techniques for any purpose other than those specified under the Act. 
• Sale, distribution, supply, renting, or otherwise making available any ultrasound machine or equipment capable of detecting the sex of the foetus.