Section 20. Cancellation or suspension of registration
(1) The Appropriate Authority may suo motu, or on complaint, issue a notice to the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic to show cause why its registration should not be suspended or cancelled for the reasons mentioned in the notice.
(2) If, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic and having regard to the advice of the Advisory Committee, the Appropriate Authority is satisfied that there has been a breach of the provisions of this Act or the rules, it may, without prejudice to any criminal action that it may take against such Centre, Laboratory or Clinic, suspend its registration for such period as it may think fit or cancel its registration, as the case may be.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), if the Appropriate Authority is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend the registration of any Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic without issuing any such notice referred to in sub-section (1).
How courts have applied section 20
- Sub-section (3) confers a power of suspension alone, not cancellation, and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances.1,2,3
- Cancellation under sub-section (3) is without jurisdiction where the power is only to suspend.2,3,4,5,6
- Orders under sub-sections (1) and (2) require a show cause notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before suspension or cancellation.1,2,3
- An order without jurisdiction is a nullity in the eyes of law.2,3
- Suspension or cancellation must be supported by recorded 'reason to believe' and be taken in the manner prescribed under Section 17.2,3,7
- Vague show cause notices and absence of opportunity to explain can render proceedings unsustainable, though fresh notice and reply can cure this.8
- Criminal complaints under Section 20 read with other sections may be quashed where the allegation against an accused is bald, vague, or rests solely on a co-accused's statement.9,10
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements here deal mostly with challenges to orders suspending or cancelling registration of ultrasound centres and genetic clinics under Section 20, with courts frequently examining the procedure followed by the Appropriate Authority. The Supreme Court has explained that sub-sections (1) and (2) cover both suspension and cancellation, requiring notice, a reasonable opportunity of hearing, regard to the Advisory Committee's advice, and satisfaction of a breach of the Act or Rules, before action is taken. Sub-section (3), by contrast, confers an independent, notwithstanding power of suspension alone, exercisable only where the authority records reasons in writing that immediate action is necessary or expedient in public interest; it is not akin to the sub-section (2) power and must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances.1,11,2
A recurring question is whether an order purportedly under sub-section (3) could validly cancel registration, and several orders from one High Court held that sub-section (3) empowers only suspension, not cancellation, so a cancellation under it was without jurisdiction. These same orders also found that, even if the action were presumed to be under sub-sections (1) or (2), no show cause notice was issued and no reasons were recorded, and the action was not taken in the manner prescribed under Section 17 with the requisite 'reason to believe' as interpreted in a Supreme Court precedent dealing with an exactly similar situation, making the order a nullity. Another decision similarly held that suspension of registration under sub-section (3) was unjustified where there was no material showing the action was necessary in the public interest, and a cancellation was unsustainable where it was admitted that no show cause notice had been issued.2,3,4,5,6,7
Courts also examined the validity of the underlying complaint and notice. One writ petition was dismissed where the show cause notice under sub-section (1) was vague and no opportunity to explain was afforded, but after a fresh notice was issued and a reply received, relief was declined in view of findings of unqualified staff, unauthorised scanning and abortions, and a decoy operation history. A cancellation was upheld by the writ court after a complaint, inspection, show cause notice enumerating several charges, and the centre's explanation, although the appeal proceedings continued. In criminal proceedings, courts quashed complaints where there was no material against the accused beyond a bald and vague allegation that they referred or brought pregnant women for selective procedures, and where a radiologist's arraignment rested solely on the statement of a co-accused without corroborative material, even showing absence from the centre on the raid date.8,11,9,10
Appellate authorities also faced scrutiny. An appellate order was held erroneous and illegal for not considering a specific argument regarding the violation of Rule 12 of the 1996 Rules, especially when similar appeals on identical grounds were allowed, and the matter was remanded for a fresh hearing. Some High Court orders allowed petitions because the issue of levy of fees and registration was already answered in a prior judgment of the same court. One High Court set aside a denial of licence renewal and seizure of equipment as arbitrary, where a pending civil suit and court order justified continuation of the licence.12,13,14,15,16
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 20
District 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;
DismissedOpenFederation 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).
DismissedOpenThe High Court of Karnataka allowed two bail petitions under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) filed by hospital staff. Quashing orders against the petitioners in two separate criminal cases were passed by relying on a previous judgment of this Court, holding that privilege for fee levy does not crystallize on penal…
DisposedOpenDr Vijaya Raghava Reddy Vs Deputy Commissioner and District Appropriate Authority (Daa)
Outcome: DisposedPetitioners faced criminal proceedings under PC&PNDT Act. Court disposed of cross criminal petitions by allowing them and quashing proceedings, relying on an earlier decision where the legal issue was already answered, directing state to issue notice and regulate procedure.
DisposedOpenHigh Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Hon'ble the Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Hon'ble Sri Justice G.M. Mohiuddin) — Writ Appeal No. 214 of 2026, decided 30.03.2026. The registration of M/s.
DisposedOpenUpendra 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
A hospital seized on allegations of sex determination and illegal abortions challenged the show cause notice for lack of hearing. After interim unsealing and a fresh notice, the court found serious irregularities and multiple pending cases and dismissed the writ petition.
DismissedOpenQuashing 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;
AllowedOpenCriminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC — quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.2095/2022 (offences under Sections 23, 23(1), 23(2), 20(1), 20(2), 20(3), 28 and 30 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994) — petitioner, a radiologist, arraigned as accused No.3…
AllowedOpenThe High Court quashed an appellate authority's order dismissing a challenge against a PCPNDT Act seizure because it failed to consider the petitioner's argument regarding Rule 12 non-compliance, noting inconsistent rulings on identical grounds. The matter was remanded for a fresh hearing within two weeks.
DisposedOpenWrit petition challenging dismissal of appeal regarding ultrasound center seizure. Court quashed the order for not considering argument on Rule 12 violation despite identical facts in another appeal. Matter remanded to pass fresh order hearing all grievances within two weeks.
DisposedOpenThe High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the suspension of a CT Scan center's registration and subsequent equipment seizure. The court held that licensing requires lawful possession, not necessarily a registered deed, and barred the landlord from opposing the license while tenant rent arrears are being paid.
AllowedOpen
Crl.O.P.No.31538 of 2025; Madras High Court; K. Rajasekar J.; 19.11.2025; bail refused/dismissed; Section 483 BNSS Act 2023; Sections 88, 66 BNS 2023; Section 5(2) Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971; Sections 6(a), 6(b), 20 PCPNDT Act 1994; prenatal diagnostic test; female foetus abortion; sex selection;
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;
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
Show 4 more
Upendra 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));
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