Section 4. Regulation of pre-natal diagnostic techniques
On and from the commencement of this Act,--
(1) no place including a registered Genetic Counselling Centre or Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic shall be used or caused to be used by any person for conducting pre-natal diagnostic techniques except for the purposes specified in clause (2) and after satisfying any of the conditions specified in clause (3);
(2) no pre-natal diagnostic techniques shall be conducted except for the purposes of detection of any of the following abnormalities, namely:--
(i) chromosomal abnormalities;
(ii) genetic metabolic diseases;
(iii) haemoglobinopathies;
(iv) sex-linked genetic diseases;
(v) congenital anomalies;
(vi) any other abnormalities or diseases as may be specified by the Central Supervisory Board;
1 [(3) no pre-natal diagnostic techniques shall be used or conducted unless the person qualified to do so is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that any of the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:--
(i) age of the pregnant woman is above thirty-five years;
(ii) the pregnant woman has undergone two or more spontaneous abortions or foetal loss;
(iii) the pregnant woman had been exposed to potentially teratogenic agents such as drugs, radiation, infection or chemicals;
(iv) the pregnant woman or her spouse has a family history of mental retardation or physical deformities such as, spasticity or any other genetic disease;
(v) any other condition as may be specified by the Board:
Provided that the person conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman shall keep complete record thereof in the clinic in such manner, as may be prescribed, and any deficiency or inaccuracy found therein shall amount to contravention of the provisions of section 5 or section 6 unless contrary is proved by the person conducting such ultrasonography;
(4) no person including a relative or husband of the pregnant woman shall seek or encourage the conduct of any pre-natal diagnostic techniques on her except for the purposes specified in clause (2);
(5) no person including a relative or husband of a woman shall seek or encourage the conduct of any sex selection technique on her or him or both.]
How courts have applied section 4
- A search authorised by a single member of the District Appropriate Authority is illegal, but evidence seized is not automatically excluded.1
- Cognizance of offences under the Act requires a complaint under Section 28; courts quashed proceedings initiated on a police report or by an unauthorised officer.2,3,4
- Complete Form 'F' record-keeping is mandatory and a condition precedent for any pre-natal diagnostic test; an incomplete form raises a presumption against the medical practitioner.5
- Section 20(3) power to suspend registration is independent and must be exercised sparingly, in exceptional circumstances, for reasons recorded in writing.6
- A doctor can be discharged where there is no prima facie involvement, even if his name remained on a clinic's registration panel after he left.7
- The police investigating IPC offences does not bar the complaint procedure under Section 28 of the Act.8
- Proceedings can be quashed where the suspension of registration had already ended before the alleged conduct.9
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements here deal mostly with procedural challenges to prosecutions under the Act: cognizance, complaints, searches, and quashing of proceedings. Several High Courts quashed proceedings and granted bail where the complaint or charge sheet was not initiated by the District Appropriate Authority acting as a body, or where there was no valid complaint under Section 28. The Supreme Court held that a search authorised by a single member of the District Appropriate Authority is illegal, though evidence seized in such a search is not automatically excluded if relevant and admissible; a prior discharge order in a police investigation does not bar the Appropriate Authority from instituting its own complaint. Courts also held that proceedings must be initiated by the District Appropriate Authority constituted under Section 17, and that the police investigating IPC offences does not bar the complaint procedure under Section 28.2,3,4,10,1,8
On the substantive provisions, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act and rules, and held that complete record-keeping through Form 'F' is mandatory and is the condition precedent for any pre-natal diagnostic test; an incomplete Form 'F' raises a presumption of doubt against the medical practitioner. The Court also explained the scope of power to suspend or cancel registration under Section 20: sub-sections (1) and (2) deal with both suspension and cancellation after notice and hearing, while sub-section (3) confers an independent, sparingly exercisable power of immediate suspension in public interest. On rule-making, the Court held prima facie that Section 32(1) confers power to specify qualifications for persons employed at genetic centres, including a training requirement.5,6,11
In several cases, courts examined whether a doctor was personally involved in an offence. A radiologist was discharged where he had left the clinic before the raid, even though his name remained on the registration panel. A suspension notice that ended on submission of registration rendered subsequent proceedings unsustainable. Bail was granted where there was no allegation of prenatal detection and the licence application was pending at the time of the raid. Some High Court decisions quashed proceedings on the ground that no court can take cognizance without a complaint under Section 28. One matter was left for the trial court to consider a quashing application on the ground of settlement and domestic dispute, while another quashing application on parity was noted but not finally decided in the headnote.7,9,12,3,4,13,14,10,15
A few judgements are routine: an anticipatory bail order with standard conditions, a dismissal of a second revision petition as not maintainable, and a writ challenging a selection process for a medical fellowship, which does not directly concern the Act.16,17,18
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 4
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal seeking to quash a criminal complaint under the PCPNDT Act. The Court held that while a search conducted by a single authority member was illegal under Section 30, the seized evidence remained admissible.
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).
DismissedOpenUnion 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;
DisposedOpenDr. Oishika Chakraborty Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences - Aiims - through Its Director & Ors.
Writ Petition (Civil)AIIMS MFM Fellowship Subject Code 70 January 2026; deviation from prospectus; sanctity of prospectus binding institution; Stage-II online CV PowerPoint interview substituted for departmental clinical practical lab based assessment; Article 226 writ; Article 14 arbitrariness;
Writ Petition (Civil)OpenMaintainability of second revision petition; Section 438(3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) bar on further application by same person once revision filed to High Court or Sessions Judge; PCPNDT Act, 1994 charge under Sections 23 and 25 for violating Rules and Sections 4, 5 and 29;
Show 6 more
PCPNDT Act discharge restored; Rule 3(3)(3) PCPNDT Rules 1996 stay of operation; dual registration two districts not an offence; registration panel stale entry no criminal liability; sex determination raid Janta Diagnostic Centre Hansi FIR No.534/2016; Section 23 PCPNDT Act; Section 420 IPC;
AllowedOpenPetition 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.
AllowedOpenQuashing of PC&PNDT Act complaint under Section 482 CrPC; suspension notice dated 4.3.2014 'till submission of required registration with State Medical Council'; automatic revocation of suspension on submission of registration on 7.3.2014; formal revocation 29.3.2014 immaterial;
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.
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;
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.
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.
Quashing 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.
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
CRM-M-49677-2025, High Court of Punjab & Haryana, decided 11.09.2025, Judge Surya Partap Singh. Bail granted to petitioner Vikram in FIR No.185 dated 26.07.2025, Police Station City Jhajjar, District Jhajjar — offences under BNS 2023 Sections 318(4), 319, 61, 238, 3(5);
AllowedOpenDistrict 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.;
DisposedOpenContractual employment — Stigmatic termination — Opportunity of hearing — Article 311 inapplicable to contractual employees. Respondent, engaged as ANM on contract in May 2007 with renewals up to 31.03.2021, was discontinued w.e.f.
DisposedOpenPCPNDT 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;