Section 3. Regulation of Genetic Counselling Centres, Genetic Laboratories and Genetic Clinics
On and from the commencement of this Act,--
(1) no Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic unless registered under this Act, shall conduct or associate with, or help in, conducting activities relating to pre-natal diagnostic techniques;
1 [(2) no Genetic Counselling Centre or Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic shall employ or cause to be employed or take services of any person, whether on honorary basis or on payment who does not possess the qualifications as may be prescribed;]
(3) no medical geneticist, gynaecologist paediatrician registered medical practitioner or any other person shall conduct or cause to be conducted or aid in conducting by himself or through any other person, any pre-natal diagnostic techniques at a place other than a place registered under this Act.
How courts have applied section 3
- Cognizance of offences under the Act is barred except on a complaint; proceedings based on a charge-sheet and summoning order without such a complaint were quashed.1,2,3
- Section 20(3) empowers the Appropriate Authority only to suspend, not cancel, registration; cancellation without jurisdiction is a nullity.4
- Quashing petitions are refused where the complaint and final report contain specific allegations attracting the ingredients of the offences, as those are disputed questions of fact for trial.5,6,7
- A complainant in a private complaint under the Act is a 'victim' with an absolute right to appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C..8,9
- Section 32(1) confers rule-making power on the Central Government to specify minimum qualifications for persons employed at genetic counselling centres, laboratories and clinics.10
- Bail was granted on parity with similarly situated co-accused and on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.11
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The judgements in this sample primarily concern procedural challenges to prosecutions and regulatory actions under the Act, rather than the substantive merits of the Section 3 prohibitions. A recurring and decisive question is whether cognizance was validly taken: under Section 28 of the Act, no court can take cognizance of offences except on a complaint, and proceedings were quashed where the charge-sheet and summoning order were not based on such a complaint. Relatedly, the Appropriate Authority has power only to suspend registration under Section 20(3), not to cancel it; a cancellation order passed without jurisdiction, without a show cause notice, and without recorded reasons was held to be a nullity. Where applications for quashing were allowed on the principle of parity with co-accused whose proceedings had already been quashed on the Section 28 ground, the competent authority remained at liberty to reinitiate proceedings in strict consonance with the procedure under the Act.1,2,3,4
Where quashing was sought on the merits, courts declined to interfere. Specific allegations in the complaint and final report attracting the ingredients of offences under Sections 3(3), 3A, 6(b)(c) and 23(1)(2) were held to raise disputed questions of fact for trial, not to be decided in a quashing petition. In one such case, however, the accused's personal presence before the trial court was dispensed with subject to representation through counsel. On the issue of appeals against acquittal, courts followed the Supreme Court's mandate that a complainant in a case instituted upon a private complaint is a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. and may appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023). In bail matters, a court found the Sessions Judge's reasoning flawed for wrongly applying Section 50 NDPS Act, but declined to cancel bail where the FSL report was never placed on record; regular bail was granted on the principle of parity with a similarly situated co-accused and on the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and anticipatory bail was granted with a direction to join investigation.5,6,7,8,9,12,11,13
On rule-making power, the Supreme Court held prima facie that Section 32(1) confers power on the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act, including specifying minimum qualifications for persons employed at genetic counselling centres, laboratories and clinics, and that specification of such qualifications necessarily comprehends the impugned training requirement. The sample includes no final judgement on the merits of whether particular conduct violated Section 3; the proceedings concern allegations of conducting sex determination at unregistered places and by unqualified persons, and challenges to registration cancellations.10,12,11,4
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 3
Union of India versus Indian Radiological and Imaging Association and Ors. etc. etc.
Outcome: DisposedPCPNDT Act 1994 s. 32 rule-making power; minimum qualifications; six months training; ultrasound; sonologist/imaging specialist; Rule 3.3(1)(b) PCPNDT Rules 1996; Six Months Training Rules 2014; ultra vires subordinate legislation; manifest arbitrariness; judicial review of legislative policy;
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;
AllowedOpenQuashing on Section 28 PCPNDT Act parity. Allahabad High Court, Saurabh Srivastava J., September 25, 2025; Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 37644 of 2025; Rahul Bhati and another v. State of U.P. and another; applicants implicated alongside co-accused Praveen Kumar and 2 others (Application u/s 528 BNSS No.
Allahabad High Court, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:83912; Application U/S 482 No. 36174 of 2024, decided 19.5.2025 by Saurabh Srivastava, J.; applicant Dr Dheeraj Raghav @ Dheeraj Singh Raghav vs State of U.P.; quashing of charge-sheet dated 14.05.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated 02.09.2023 in Criminal Case No.
Quashing granted on parity: Allahabad HC allowed Reena Dalal and another's application under S.528 BNSS (No. 35035 of 2025) and quashed the entire proceeding in Case no. 1233 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime no.
Quashing of criminal proceedings is not warranted where the complaint and final report contain specific allegations attracting the ingredients of offences under Sections 3(3), 3A, 6(b)(c) and 23(1)(2) of the PCPNDT Act; contentions of innocence are disputed questions of fact to be decided at trial.
DisposedOpen
Show 6 more
Telangana High Court (J. Sreenivas Rao, J.), Crl.P. No.16864 of 2025, order dated 17.12.2025: quashing petition under Section 528 BNSS by doctor/Accused No.4 against CC.No.44 of 2025 (JMFC Kamareddy) under PCPNDT Act 1994 Ss.3(3), 3A, 6(b)(c), 23(1)(2) and PCPNDT Rules 6(6) and 8 dismissed;
DismissedOpenCriminal petition to quash PCPNDT Act proceedings dismissed. Court held specific allegations exist attracting offence ingredients; disputed facts require trial. Presentin embodiment of accused dispensed with subject to counsel-only representation.
DismissedOpenDistrict Appropriate Authority Cum Civil Surgeon, Sangrur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.
Outcome: DisposedCRM-A-1599-2024 (O&M); Punjab & Haryana High Court; Sanjay Vashisth, J.; leave to appeal against acquittal dated 17.09.2024 (JMFC Sangrur) in PCPNDT Act, 1994 complaint (ss. 3, 4, 5, 6, 23, 29; Rules 9(1), 9(4), 9(6), 10(1A), 11(2), 18 of 1996 Rules); complainant as 'victim' under S.2(wa) Cr.P.C.;
DisposedOpenPunjab 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;
DisposedOpen
Section 528 BNSS quashing application; PCPNDT Act 1994 Sections 3, 4, 23, 25; interim stay of complaint proceedings; summoning order dated 11.02.2022; Complaint Case No.6691 of 2022 (Dr.Sunil Tyagi vs. Dr.D.S.Mavi); Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad; P.S. Loni Border; Allahabad High Court; Justice Deepak Verma;
Interim stay on parity-based quashing plea. Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 49813 of 2025, Sahab Singh and another v. State of U.P. and another, Allahabad High Court, Court No. 78, Vivek Kumar Singh, J., 12.12.2025. Underlying case: Case no. 1233 of 2025 (State v. Riya Sahgal and others), Case Crime no.
Regular bail granted on parity despite four similar criminal antecedents; Section 483 BNSS bail application; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; Judge Sanjay A. Deshmukh; decided 14 October 2025; Bail Application No.1502 of 2025; applicant Sandip Kailas Gore v. State of Maharashtra;
AllowedOpenQuashing on Section 28 PCPNDT Act parity. Allahabad High Court, Saurabh Srivastava J., September 25, 2025; Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 37644 of 2025; Rahul Bhati and another v. State of U.P. and another; applicants implicated alongside co-accused Praveen Kumar and 2 others (Application u/s 528 BNSS No.
Quashing granted on parity: Allahabad HC allowed Reena Dalal and another's application under S.528 BNSS (No. 35035 of 2025) and quashed the entire proceeding in Case no. 1233 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime no.
Bail granted; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 21554 of 2025; Kamal Kumar v. State of U.P.; Case Crime No.140 of 2025, P.S. Wave City, District Ghaziabad; Sections 61(2), 318(4) B.N.S. 2023; Sections 3/4/5 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971; Section 34 National Medical Commission Act;
Show 4 more
PCPNDT Act 1994 Section 28 cognizance only upon complaint by competent authority; FIR-initiated proceedings quashed on parity with Praveen Kumar and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another (Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 11599 of 2025, judgment dated 15.05.2025); summoning order dated 17.02.2025 of CJM Baghpat quashed;
Rajdendrakumar Kashinath Sawant v. State of Maharashtra, Bail Application No. 1229 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench (Arun R. Pedneker J.), decided 25/07/2025. Bail allowed under Ss. 61(2), 88, 91, 3(5) BNS 2023, Ss. 3-4 MTP Act 1971, S. 33(2) Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, Ss.
AllowedOpenPunjab & Haryana High Court (Sanjay Vashisth J., 22.07.2025) in CRM-M-13379-2025 allowed regular bail under Section 483 BNSS to Dr. Anant Ram, accused in FIR No.866/2023, PS Barwala, Hisar, under PC & PNDT Act ss.3-29 and IPC ss.120-B/201/34. Factors: investigation complete and final report filed;
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