Section 22. Prohibition of advertisement relating to pre-conception and pre-natal determination of sex and punishment for contravention
1 [22. Prohibition of advertisement relating to pre-conception and pre-natal determination of sex and punishment for contravention.-- (1) No person, organisation, Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic including clinic, laboratory or centre having ultrasound machine or imaging machine or scanner or any other technology capable of undertaking determination of sex of the foetus or sex selection shall issue, publish, distribute, communicate or cause to be issued, published, distributed or communicated any advertisement, in any form, including internet, regarding facilities of pre-natal determination of sex or sex selection before conception available at such Centre, Laboratory, Clinic or at any other place.
(2) No person or organisation including Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic shall issue, publish, distribute, communicate or cause to be issued, published, distributed or communicated any advertisement in any manner regarding pre-natal determination or pre-conception selection of sex by any means whatsoever, scientific or otherwise.
(3) Any person who contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "advertisement" includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or any other document including advertisement through internet or any other media in electronic or print form and also includes any visible representation made by means of any hoarding, wall-painting, signal, light, sound, smoke or gas.]
How courts have applied section 22
- Bail may be granted where the accused has clean antecedents, especially if a co-accused with similar allegations has already been released.1,2,3
- Bail is refused where a prima facie case is established by seized material and supporting witnesses, or where the applicant has a criminal antecedent for similar offences.4
- A complaint is not maintainable under Section 28 if filed by an officer who is not the 'appropriate authority' under Section 17, as no sub-delegation of that power is permitted.5
- Section 28 does not bar police investigation of IPC offences detected during an enquiry into a Section 22 complaint.6
- Courts may quash proceedings under Section 22 or 23 where no material discloses the offence, but will not quash where the charge sheet and witnesses disclose serious allegations.7,8,9,10
- Attendance before the trial court may be dispensed with for accused persons, subject to counsel representation and appearance when required.9,10
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The judgements here deal mainly with proceedings arising from alleged violations of Section 22 and related provisions, which prohibit advertisements and other communications regarding pre-natal sex determination or sex selection. Courts most often decided bail applications, quashing petitions, and questions of who may file a valid complaint. In several bail matters, anticipatory or regular bail was granted where the accused had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody for some time, or where co-accused with similar allegations had already been released. Bail was refused where a prima facie case was made out from seized material and witnesses, or where the accused had a criminal antecedent for similar offences.11,5,7,6,1,2,12,13,3,4
A recurring question is the authority of the complainant. A complaint filed by the District Health and Family Welfare Officer was held not maintainable under Section 28 because that officer was not the 'appropriate authority' under Section 17 and no sub-delegation of that power was permitted. By contrast, Section 28 does not bar police investigation of IPC offences (such as causing miscarriage without consent) detected during an enquiry under the Act. In quashing proceedings, charges were quashed where no material disclosed an offence under Section 22 or 23, but quashing was refused where the charge sheet and witness statements disclosed serious allegations of running unapproved machines and handing over a newborn to another person, and where investigation material showed the accused was a hospital director and tests were conducted without permission.5,6,7,8,9,10
Courts also granted relief by dispensing with the personal attendance of accused persons before the trial court, provided they were represented by counsel and appeared when required. Where offences attract punishment of less than seven years and investigation is ongoing, one High Court disposed of an anticipatory bail application directing the petitioner to file a representation with the Superintendent of Police.9,10,14
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 22
PC-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;
DisposedOpenPC-PNDT Act 1994 implementation; female foeticide; declining sex ratio; Article 32 writ; directions to States and Union Territories; centralized database of civil registration records; district-wise birth information on website; Sections 22, 23, 23(2), 17(1), 17(2), 17A, 4(3) proviso; Rule 18A sub-rule 6 Form H;
DisposedOpenPC&PNDT Act, 1994 - Section 28 - cognizance restriction - police investigation and charge-sheet under IPC - Revision against rejection of discharge (S.227 Cr.PC) dismissed.
DismissedOpenPetition to quash proceedings against a doctor accused of running unauthorised PNDT tests and handing over a newborn. Court found serious allegations on the charge sheet, refused quashing, but disposed of the petition dispensing with the petitioner's personal attendance subject to counsel appearing on every hearing…
DisposedOpenQuashing petition by accused named only in the charge sheet was refused where investigation material showed she was the hospital's director and pre-natal diagnostic tests and medical terminations were conducted there without permission or records, disclosing a prima facie case triable only after trial.
DisposedOpenPCPNDT 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
Show 6 more
Bail granted by Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) on 02-05-2025 in B.A. No.3605 of 2025, Ghanshyam Saw v. The State of Jharkhand. Accused in Chouparan P.S.
BailOpenJharkhand High Court, Ranchi — B.A. No.3378 of 2025, Order No.02 dated 02-05-2025, Coram: Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. Bail application of Ganesh Kumar Saw allowed in Chouparan P.S. Case No.65 of 2025 (offences under Ss. 223, 91, 3(5) BNS 2023 and Ss. 22(2), 23, 23(3) PCPNDT Act 1994;
BailOpenHigh Court of Orissa allowed bail petition filed by Dr. Punyaslok Das in connection with allegations under IPC and PC & PNDT Act, granting release on bond with surety and conditions.
DisposedOpenRegular bail application under Section 439 CrPC arising from a raid on illegal use of an ultrasound machine; petitioner in custody since February 2024 with no similar antecedents. Court granted bail on bond of Rs.30,000 with one local solvent surety and disposed of the BLAPL.
DisposedOpenAnticipatory bail, Section 438(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.82302 of 2023, decision 10-01-2024, Justice Arun Kumar Jha; Mahila P.S. Case No. 13 of 2016, East Champaran, registered 07.04.2016; offences under IPC Sections 341, 342, 323, 379, 420, 406, 498A, 312, 313/34;
AllowedOpenAnticipatory 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.
DismissedOpen
Key themes for retrieval: quashing of charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order and entire criminal proceedings as abuse of process; application under Section 528 BNSS;
Key themes for retrieval: quashing of charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order and entire criminal proceedings as abuse of process; application under Section 528 BNSS;
Anticipatory bail application in a PC & PNDT Act complaint case where offences carry punishment below seven years. Court disposed of the application in terms of its earlier order in Naushad Ansari, permitting representation to the Superintendent of Police for adherence to Section 41(A) Cr.P.C.
DisposedOpenAnticipatory bail allowed; PCPNDT Act (Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act) Sections 22(1), 23(1), 23(3), 25; unregistered ultrasound centre 'Raj Ultrasound', Chousa, Buxar; proprietorship disputed; Section 438(2) Code of Criminal Procedure conditions imposed;
AllowedOpenPetitioner sought anticipatory bail in a PCPNDT Act complaint case alleging an unregistered ultrasound centre at his premises. Citing the nature of accusations, parity with similarly situated co-accused granted bail earlier, and clean antecedents, the court allowed anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond and…
AllowedOpenAnticipatory bail; PCPNDT Act 1994 Sections 22(1), 23(1), 23(3), 25; ultrasound centre without permanent registration; ad-hoc registration; premises sealed; show cause notice 09.08.2023 and reply 16.08.2023; complaint lodged after about five months' delay;
AllowedOpen
Show 4 more
Patna High Court; CR. MISC. No.26963 of 2024; decided 12-07-2024; Anjani Kumar Sharan, J; Raja Kumar v. The State of Bihar; anticipatory bail rejected; Siwaipatti P.S. Case No. 105 of 2023; District Muzaffarpur; Sections 420 IPC; Section 22/23 PC and PNDT Act; illegal ultrasound centre;
DismissedOpenPatna High Court Crl. Misc. No. 40667 of 2024, order dated 03-07-2024, Arun Kumar Jha, J. Anticipatory bail (pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC) granted to Suresh Kumar Agrawal apprehending arrest in Complaint Case No.
AllowedOpenThe High Court of Patna granted bail to the petitioner in a case involving cheating and illegal practice of an ultrasound centre. The court considered the clean antecedents, the submission of the charge sheet, and custody duration before granting bail with specific conditions.
AllowedOpenThe High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad allowed a bail application. The applicant, charged with illegally conducting pregnancy tests resulting in a female fetus being aborted and the death of the woman, was released on bail despite the severity of the charges after the investigation was deemed complete.
AllowedOpen