Section 18. Registration of Genetic Counselling Centres, Genetic Laboratories or Genetic Clinics
1 [(1) No person shall open any Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic, including clinic, laboratory or centre having ultrasound or imaging machine or scanner or any other technology capable of undertaking determination of sex of foetus and sex selection, or render services to any of them, after the commencement of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Amendment Act, 2002 (14 of 2003) unless such Centre, Laboratory or Clinic is duly registered under the Act.]
(2) Every application for registration under sub-section (1), shall be made to the Appropriate Authority in such form and in such manner and shall be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed.
(3) Every Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic engaged, either partly or exclusively, in counselling or conducting pre-natal diagnostic techniques for any of the purposes mentioned in section 4, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall apply for registration within sixty days from the date of such commencement.
(4) Subject to the provisions of section 6, every Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic engaged in counselling or conducting pre-natal diagnostic techniques shall cease to conduct any such counselling or technique on the expiry of six months from the date of commencement of this Act unless such Centre, Laboratory or Clinic has applied for registration and is so registered separately or jointly or till such application is disposed of, whichever is earlier.
(5) No Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic shall be registered under this Act unless the Appropriate Authority is satisfied that such Centre, Laboratory or Clinic is in a position to provide such facilities, maintain such equipment and standards as may be prescribed.
How courts have applied section 18
- Running an unregistered ultrasound or diagnostic centre is a prima facie violation of Section 18; the offence is cognizable and non-bailable, which typically weighs against anticipatory bail.1,2
- Complete and accurate Form 'F' recording is a mandatory condition precedent for any pre-natal diagnostic test, and its non-maintenance is the springboard of female foeticide offences.3
- A complaint under Section 28 is not maintainable if filed by an officer who is not the 'appropriate authority' under Section 17, and the delegated power cannot be sub-delegated.4
- Bail has been granted where the investigation is complete, trial is at an initial stage, and the applicant has no antecedents or no direct material evidence against them.5,6,7
- Anticipatory bail was refused where the petitioner had criminal antecedents for similar offences and an enquiry team seized equipment from the premises.2
- A charging sheet is not vitiated by an allegation of irregular appointment of authority if the State Government notification covers the area.8
- Courts have refused to de-seal a seized unregistered machine during a show cause adjudication, treating the machine as evidence.9
- Renewal of registration may be refused for safety infrastructure deficiencies, with patient safety prevailing over livelihood interests.10
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements here deal overwhelmingly with bail applications and procedural challenges arising under Section 18 of the PCPNDT Act, rather than with final adjudications of the provision itself. Courts repeatedly note that running an ultrasound or diagnostic centre without valid registration is a prima facie violation of Section 18 read with other provisions. Where there is no allegation of prenatal sex determination against the accused, and the licence application was pending at the time of the raid, anticipatory bail was granted. Conversely, where enquiry teams seized equipment and documents from premises allegedly run as an unregistered centre, and the accused had similar criminal antecedents, anticipatory bail was refused. The offence is considered cognizable and non-bailable, and a prima facie violation of Section 18 is sufficient to deny pre-arrest relief.11,12,5,13,1,2
Beyond bail, courts have addressed the scope and limits of the registration requirement. One decision upheld the constitutional validity of the Act, including Section 18, and held that compliance with Form 'F' under the Rules is a mandatory condition precedent for undertaking any pre-natal diagnostic test, not a clerical requirement. The Supreme Court reasoned that record-keeping under the Act tracks and regulates technology capable of sex selection, and its non-maintenance is the springboard of the offence of female foeticide. However, a coordinate bench of the Karnataka High Court quashed cognizance where the complaint was filed by an officer who was not the 'appropriate authority' under Section 17, holding that the power delegated to the Assistant Commissioner could not be sub-delegated, and thus the complaint was not maintainable under Section 28. Another order concerned a writ petition against a show cause notice, holding it premature, and refusing to de-seal an unregistered PET scan machine seized as evidence, while leaving contentions open for re-application after adjudication. A decision refusing renewal of registration cited safety infrastructure deficiencies and held that patient safety outweighs livelihood interests.3,4,9,10
Several orders are procedural. One quashing petition was dismissed as infructuous because the petitioner was discharged during its pendency. Another granted leave to appeal to the State against an acquittal, relying on the victim's absolute right to appeal and the doctrine of prospective overruling in relation to the retrospective operation of Supreme Court law. Bail matters were decided on the strength of the material: where the investigation was complete but trial was at an initial stage, and the offences were punishable with imprisonment up to five years, bail was allowed. A woman alleged to be an agent/mediator was granted regular bail where charge sheet was filed, charge not framed, and there were no immediate prospects of trial. Where the only material was a record of phone calls with a co-accused, and nothing was recovered from the accused, bail was granted. Bail was refused where repeated involvement in the same crime frustrated the object of the Act, and a charging sheet was not vitiated by an irregular appointment if the notification covered the area.14,15,7,5,6,8
A few orders involved anticipatory bail granted subject to joining investigation and on conditions of cooperation, based on the principles in Satender Kumar Antil, Siddharam Mhetre, Sibbia, Arnesh Kumar and Sushila Aggarwal. One anticipatory bail was granted for an ultrasound operation without valid permission where the court considered the nature of allegations and record materials. A bail cancellation application was dismissed where the FSL report and gross weight of recovered capsules were never placed on record, despite the Sessions Judge's flawed reasoning on the NDPS Act.12,16,13,17
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 18
Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India (Fogsi) versus Union of India and Others
Outcome: DismissedFOGSI v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 129/2017, decided 03-05-2019; Arun Mishra & Vineet Saran JJ.): Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 23(1) and 23(2) of the PCPNDT Act, 1994 and the proviso to Section 4(3).
DismissedOpenPatna High Court (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J., 09-06-2026) allows anticipatory bail in Crl. Misc. No. 37288 of 2026 arising from Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 126 of 2026 (Aurangabad) under BNS 2023 ss. 318(2), 319(2), 271, 272 and PCPNDT Act ss. 4, 18, 23; owner of unlicensed ultrasound clinic;
AllowedOpenPunjab and Haryana High Court, CRM-A-2184-MA-2016 (O&M), Rajesh Bhardwaj J., decided 18.08.2025: State of Haryana's leave-to-appeal application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C.
DisposedOpenP&H High Court (Anoop Chitkara, J.), CRM-M-32981-2021, pronounced 20.02.2025: State's Section 439(2) CrPC application to cancel bail granted on 30.01.2020 to Malkeet Singh, accused in FIR 182/15.11.2019, PS Guhla (ss.
DismissedOpenSeema v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-24956-2025, Punjab & Haryana High Court (Harpreet Singh Brar J., 28.05.2025): anticipatory bail under S.482 BNSS in FIR No.08 dated 04.01.2025, P.S. Yamuna Nagar Sadar, under PCPNDT Act 1994, NMC Act 2019 and BNS 2023 provisions;
DisposedOpenSushma Rani v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-11114-2025, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 27.03.2025 by Harpreet Singh Brar, J. — anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS sought in FIR No. 08 dated 04.01.2025, PS Sadar Yamuna Nagar, under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 91 BNS;
DisposedOpen
Show 6 more
PCPNDT 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;
AllowedOpenRegular bail granted to a woman applicant (alleged 'agent'/mediator who arranged pregnant ladies for sex determination) in Crime No.0009 of 2024, Georai Police Station, District Beed — offences under Ss. 312, 120-B r/w S. 34 IPC, Ss.
AllowedOpenChhaitanya Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs District Appropriate Authority (Pndt Act) District Magistrate (South District )& Anr.
Writ Petition (Civil)Petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued for operating an unregistered PET scan machine under the PNDT Act. The court declined to entertain the petition at the show cause notice stage and directed the authority to decide the notice within four weeks; it also declined to permit de-sealing of the machine.
Writ Petition (Civil)OpenDr. Tarun Kothari Vs District Magistrate / District Appropriate Authority (West),Pc & Pndt Act, Gnct of Delhi
Writ Petition (Civil)The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of registration renewal for a diagnostic centre under the PCPNDT Act. The authorities cited safety concerns regarding steep stairs and the absence of a ramp or lift for vulnerable patients.
Writ Petition (Civil)OpenThe single judge dismissed the bail application of逮捕ed accused charged under IPC and PCPNDT Act for illegal sex determination, citing repeated involvement in similar crimes as a ground for denial despite arguments regarding charging authority.
WithdrawnOpenBail application by an accused in an alleged illegal sex determination and termination of pregnancy case under IPC and PCPNDT provisions. Court held numerous phone calls alone insufficient at this stage, no antecedents or recoveries, investigation complete, and granted bail.
AllowedOpen
Kisan S/O Haribau Garad and 2 Other Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Mehkar Dist Buldana
Outcome: AllowedCriminal Application filed by individuals arrested for operating an illegal sonography center and conducting illegal abortions under the PCPNDT Act and Maharashtra Medical Practitioner Act. The High Court allowed bail considering the investigation was practically complete.
AllowedOpenAnticipatory bail application in a case alleging operation of an ultrasound machine without permission under the PCPNDT Act and IPC Sections 420/417; court granted anticipatory bail subject to surrender, bonds, and co-operation with investigation.
AllowedOpenPetition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of a criminal complaint under IPC Sections 420, 120-B and PCPNDT Act provisions along with the summoning order. Counsel stated the petitioner had been discharged by the trial Court on 09.12.2023, rendering the petition infructuous;
DisposedOpenAnticipatory bail application arising from an FIR alleging illegal running of diagnostic centres with ultra-sound machines under IPC Section 420 and PC & PNDT Act violations. The High Court found a prima facie case against the petitioner, proprietor of the centre, and rejected the bail request.
DismissedOpenAnticipatory bail sought by a person accused of running an unregistered Star Ultrasound Centre after seizure of prescription slips, reporting pads and flex boards during a raid. The court found a prima facie case under the PC & PNDT Act with supporting witnesses and criminal antecedents, and dismissed the application.
DismissedOpenIn this bail application, the petitioner faced charges under PCPNDT Acts and IPC regarding illegal termination of pregnancy. The High Court, finding a lack of direct incriminating material, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions including surrender within two weeks and cooperation with investigations.
AllowedOpen
Show 4 more
Criminal Revision Application allowed. High Court quashed the impugned order rejecting discharge. Court held no case made out against applicant employee where owner proceedings were quashed, relying on Supreme Court guidelines regarding Section 227 CrPC.
AllowedOpenIn this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant sought to quash criminal proceedings alleging pre-marital tests. The court dismissed the application, holding the applicant not entitled to relief, and directed them to prefer a discharge application at the trial stage.
DisposedOpenAllahabad High Court, CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 12649 of 2023, decided 12.4.2023 by Deepak Verma, J. Applicant Amarpal (hospital staff); State of U.P. opposite party; counsel Prateek Kumar for applicant, G.A. for State. Offences: Case Crime No. 105 of 2023, P.S.
AllowedOpenIn an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging two orders rejecting the release of a seized ultrasound machine, the court set aside the impugned orders. The machine was held as case property under the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act and IPC.
DisposedOpen