Section 17. Appropriate Authority and Advisory Committee
(1) The Central Government shall appoint, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more Appropriate Authorities for each of the Union territories for the purposes of this Act.
(2) The State Government shall appoint, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more Appropriate Authorities for the whole or part of the State for the purposes of this Act having regard to the intensity of the problem of pre-natal sex determination leading to female foeticide.
(3) The officers appointed as Appropriate Authorities under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be,--
1 [(a) when appointed for the whole of the State or the Union territory, consisting of the following three members--
(i) an officer of or above the rank of the Joint Director of Health and Family Welfare--Chairperson;
(ii) an eminent woman representing women's organisation; and
(iii) an officer of Law Department of the State or the Union territory concerned:
Provided that it shall be the duty of the State or the Union territory concerned to constitute multi-member State or Union territory level Appropriate Authority within three months of the coming into force of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Amendment Act, 2002 (14 of 2003):
Provided further that any vacancy occurring therein shall be filled within three months of the occurrence.]
(b) when appointed for any part of the State or the Union territory, of such other rank as the State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be, may deem fit.
(4) The Appropriate Authority shall have the following functions, namely:--
(a) to grant, suspend or cancel registration of a Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic;
(b) to enforce standards prescribed for the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory and Genetic Clinic;
(c) to investigate complaints of breach of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder and take immediate action; and
(d) to seek and consider the advice of the Advisory Committee, constituted under sub-section (5), on application for registration and on complaints for suspension or cancellation of registration;
2 [(e) to take appropriate legal action against the use of any sex selection technique by any person at any place, suo motu or brought to its notice and also to initiate independent investigations in such matter;
(f) to create public awareness against the practice of sex selection or pre-natal determination of sex;
(g) to supervise the implementation of the provisions of the Act and rules;
(h) to recommend to the Board and State Boards modifications required in the rules in accordance with changes in technology or social conditions;
(i) to take action on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee made after investigation of complaint for suspension or cancellation of registration.]
(5) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, shall constitute an Advisory Committee for each Appropriate Authority to aid and advise the Appropriate Authority in the discharge of its functions, and shall appoint one of the members of the Advisory Committee to be its Chairman.
(6) The Advisory Committee shall consist of--
(a) three medical experts from amongst gynaecologists, obstericians, paediatricians and medical geneticists;
(b) one legal expert;
(c) one officer to represent the department dealing with information and publicity of the State Government or the Union territory, as the case may be;
(d) three eminent social workers of whom not less than one shall be from amongst representatives of women's organisations.
3 [(7) No person who has been associated with the use or promotion of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for determination of sex or sex selection shall be appointed as a member of the Advisory Committee.]
(8) The Advisory Committee may meet as and when it thinks fit or on the request of the Appropriate Authority for consideration of any application for registration or any complaint for suspension or cancellation of registration and to give advice thereon:
Provided that the period intervening between any two meetings shall not exceed the prescribed period.
(9) The terms and conditions subject to which a person may be appointed to the Advisory Committee and the procedure to be followed by such Committee in the discharge of its functions shall be such as may be prescribed.
How courts have applied section 17
- Investigation of offences under the Act is exclusively with the Appropriate Authority; police cannot register an FIR or file a police report for these offences.1,2,3
- Cognizance can be taken only on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or an authorised officer under Section 28.1,4,2,3
- A complaint filed by an officer acting alone, without the collective decision of the multi-member Appropriate Authority, is illegal.4,5
- The Appropriate Authority's power under Section 20(3) is only to suspend, not cancel, registration; cancellation is without jurisdiction.6,7,8,9,10,11
- Search and seizure under Section 30 requires the authority to have a rational basis for believing an offence is being committed, without needing to record reasons.12
- A complaint by an officer authorised under Section 28(1)(a) is valid, and the District Magistrate can act as the authority.13,14
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements here chiefly concern the authority to investigate and prosecute offences under the 1994 Act. Numerous orders hold that the power of investigation rests exclusively with the Appropriate Authority constituted under Section 17, and that the police cannot register an FIR or submit a police report for these offences. Cognizance can be taken only on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or an officer authorised in that behalf under Section 28; a police report under Section 173 CrPC is premature and impermissible. Where a transaction involves both PC & PNDT contraventions and distinct general penal offences, the police retain jurisdiction over the general penal aspects while the Appropriate Authority investigates the special law components.1,2,3,4
Several judgements turn on who may validly file the complaint. A complaint by the Deputy Civil Surgeon alone, without a resolution of the multi-member District Appropriate Authority, is illegal. A complaint by the District Health and Family Welfare Officer, who is not an 'appropriate authority' and to whom no sub-delegation was permitted, is not maintainable. Conversely, a complaint by an officer authorised by the Appropriate Authority under Section 28(1)(a) is valid, and a District Magistrate as the authority can be the competent complainant. One judgement noted that Section 28 bars only court cognizance, not the registration of an FIR, and declined to quash proceedings.4,5,13,14,15
The judgements also address the exercise of the Appropriate Authority's powers. The condition precedent for search and seizure under Section 30 is that the authority must have reason to believe an offence has been or is being committed; the belief must have a rational basis and need not be recorded in writing, but must be a collective decision of the authority. Under Section 20(3), the authority may only suspend, not cancel, registration, and this power must be exercised sparingly with reasons recorded in writing; a cancellation order without jurisdiction is a nullity. Orders taken without following the manner prescribed under Section 17, and without 'reasons to believe', are liable to be set aside.12,6,7,8,9,10,11
Additionally, one judgement dealt with the Appropriate Authority's role in the context of its own decision-making, emphasising that action under Section 30(1) must be a collective decision of the multi-member authority. Another order quashed proceedings for lack of material against the accused, following a decoy operation. The headnotes also include a direction for effective implementation of the Act, recalling earlier interim orders on advertising and the constitution of a Nodal Agency.12,16,17
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 17
The Court held that despite offences under the PC & PNDT Act being cognizable, the Appropriate Authority is the sole investigating body, and police cannot register an FIR or file a chargesheet for such offences.
Pre Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 – ss. 30(1), 17, 2(a) – 'has reason to believe' – Search and seizure of a Genetic Clinic: the condition precedent for search is that the multi-member Appropriate Authority must have reason to believe that an offence under the…
AllowedOpenDistrict Appropriate Authority Under the Pndt Act and Chief District Health Officer versus Jashmina Dilip Devda & Anr.
Outcome: DismissedInterpretation of Sections 20(1), (2) & (3) of the PC&PNDT Act, 1994 read with Section 17; cancellation versus suspension of registration of genetic clinics; notice and hearing requirements under s.20(1)-(2); independent public-interest suspension power under s.20(3) requiring reasons recorded in writing;
DismissedOpenPC-PNDT Act 1994 Section 22; prohibition of online advertisements relating to pre-conception and pre-natal sex determination/sex selection; Google India, Yahoo! India, Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd.; auto-block; key words; Nodal Agency; Expert Committee; In-House Expert Body; Article 32 writ petition;
DisposedOpenPetition to quash an FIR under the PC-PNDT Act alleging illegal sex-determination ultrasound during a decoy raid. The Court held proceedings were vitiated as the raid and complaint were not authorised by the District Appropriate Authority, quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
AllowedOpenUpendra Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Family Welfare Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others
Outcome: AllowedAllahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Pankaj Bhatia, J.), WRIT-C No. 4371 of 2025, decided 17.7.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:44621), Upendra Goswami v. State of U.P. Keywords: PCPNDT Act; section 20(3) — power to suspend only, not cancel, registration of genetic clinic/ultrasound centre;
AllowedOpen
Show 6 more
Two connected petitions challenged an FIR and a complaint filed under the PCPNDT Act 1994 alleging sex determination offences. Holding cognizance permissible only via complaint by the Appropriate Authority or authorised officer, the High Court quashed FIR No. 2/2014 and Complaint No.
DisposedOpenPCPNDT Act 1994 Section 28 cognizance only on complaint by Appropriate Authority or authorised officer; FIR under Section 154 CrPC not permissible for PCPNDT offences; special statute self-contained code; Sections 4 and 5 CrPC saving special law; FIR No.
AllowedOpenDr. Randhawa Ultrasonography Imaging and Research Institute & Ors. Vs State & Anr.
Writ Petition (Criminal)Quashing of PC&PNDT FIR refused | Section 28 PC&PNDT Act bars only cognizance, not FIR registration or police investigation | Rule 18A(3)(iv) does not oust police | DAA West District held competent Appropriate Authority;
Writ Petition (Criminal)OpenPC & PNDT Act 1994 Section 17(3)(b) three-member District Appropriate Authority; complaint by Civil Surgeon alone not maintainable; retrospective/backdated operation of statutory interpretation (Lily Thomas; Sarwan Kumar); complaint under Section 28 PC & PNDT Act; conviction vitiated; acquittal;
DisposedOpenQuashing of PC&PNDT Act prosecution (Ss.23(1), 23(2), 20(1), 20(2), 20(3)) against accused Nos.5 and 7 alleged to be 'agents' who referred pregnant women for sex determination — bald and vague allegations held insufficient to continue criminal proceedings under S.482 Cr.PC (528 BNSS); Karnataka High Court;
AllowedOpenPCPNDT Act 1994 Sections 17, 17(1)(a), 22, 23, 28 and Rules 8, 9, 10, 17, 18; KPME Act 2017 Sections 19, 19A; 'appropriate authority'; delegation to Assistant Commissioner and bar on sub-delegation; maintainability of complaint by incompetent complainant; vitiation and quashing of cognizance;
AllowedOpen
Gayatri Nanjundappa @ Dr. Gayatri Singh vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another
Outcome: DismissedPCPNDT Act 1994 prosecution; cognizance under Section 28(1)(a) on complaint by officer authorised by the Appropriate Authority (Section 17(3)); District Magistrate authorization dated 18.08.2008 of Additional Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow to file complaint; single-member authorization objection;
DismissedOpenGayatri Nanjundappa @ Dr. Gayatri Singh vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another
Outcome: DismissedPCPNDT Act 1994 prosecution; cognizance under Section 28(1)(a) on complaint by officer authorised by the Appropriate Authority (Section 17(3)); District Magistrate authorization dated 18.08.2008 of Additional Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow to file complaint; single-member authorization objection;
DismissedOpenUpendra Goswami vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Family Welfare Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others
Outcome: AllowedAllahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Pankaj Bhatia, J.), WRIT-C No. 4371 of 2025, decided 17.7.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:44621), Upendra Goswami v. State of U.P. Keywords: PCPNDT Act; section 20(3) — power to suspend only, not cancel, registration of genetic clinic/ultrasound centre;
AllowedOpenUpendra Goswami vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Family Welfare Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others
Outcome: AllowedAllahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Pankaj Bhatia, J.), WRIT-C No. 4371 of 2025, decided 17.7.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:44621), Upendra Goswami v. State of U.P. Keywords: PCPNDT Act; section 20(3) — power to suspend only, not cancel, registration of genetic clinic/ultrasound centre;
AllowedOpenUpendra Goswami vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Family Welfare Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others
Outcome: AllowedAllahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Pankaj Bhatia, J.), WRIT-C No. 4371 of 2025, decided 17.7.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:44621), Upendra Goswami v. State of U.P. Keywords: PCPNDT Act; section 20(3) — power to suspend only, not cancel, registration of genetic clinic/ultrasound centre;
AllowedOpenUpendra Goswami vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Family Welfare Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others
Outcome: AllowedAllahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Pankaj Bhatia, J.), WRIT-C No. 4371 of 2025, decided 17.7.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:44621), Upendra Goswami v. State of U.P. Keywords: PCPNDT Act; section 20(3) — power to suspend only, not cancel, registration of genetic clinic/ultrasound centre;
AllowedOpen
Show 4 more
PCPNDT Act 1994 — legality of search and seizure under Section 30 ('reason to believe'); suspension under Section 20(3) 'public interest'; cancellation without Section 20(2) show cause notice and without Advisory Committee recommendation (Sections 17(4)(d), 17(4)(i));
AllowedOpenUpendra Goswami vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Family Welfare Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others
Outcome: AllowedAllahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Pankaj Bhatia, J.), WRIT-C No. 4371 of 2025, decided 17.7.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:44621), Upendra Goswami v. State of U.P. Keywords: PCPNDT Act; section 20(3) — power to suspend only, not cancel, registration of genetic clinic/ultrasound centre;
AllowedOpenUpendra Goswami vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Family Welfare Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others
Outcome: AllowedAllahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Pankaj Bhatia, J.), WRIT-C No. 4371 of 2025, decided 17.7.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:44621), Upendra Goswami v. State of U.P. Keywords: PCPNDT Act; section 20(3) — power to suspend only, not cancel, registration of genetic clinic/ultrasound centre;
AllowedOpenPCPNDT Act 1994 — legality of search and seizure under Section 30 ('reason to believe'); suspension under Section 20(3) 'public interest'; cancellation without Section 20(2) show cause notice and without Advisory Committee recommendation (Sections 17(4)(d), 17(4)(i));
AllowedOpen