Section 5. Written consent of pregnant woman and prohibition of communicating the sex of foetus
(1) No person referred to in clause (2) of section 3 shall conduct the pre-natal diagnostic procedures unless--
(a) he has explained all known side and after effects of such procedures to the pregnant woman concerned;
(b) he has obtained in the prescribed form her written consent to undergo such procedures in the language which she understands; and
(c) a copy of her written consent obtained under clause (b) is given to the pregnant woman.
1 [(2) No person including the person conducting pre-natal diagnostic procedures shall communicate to the pregnant woman concerned or her relatives or any other person the sex of the foetus by words, signs, or in any other manner.]
How courts have applied section 5
- Section 5 must be read with Section 28: cognizance of PCPNDT offences is barred unless on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority, not a police report.1,2
- Form 'F' is mandatory; incomplete contents raise a presumption against the medical practitioner.3
- A raid authorised by the Deputy Civil Surgeon alone, without the District Appropriate Authority, is illegal.1
- A suspension of registration that ends upon submission of documents does not cover procedures after that submission.4
- Police may investigate IPC offences despite Section 28's complaint requirement for PCPNDT offences.5
- A vendor of sonography machines can get anticipatory bail under Section 5(2) when custodial interrogation is unnecessary.6,7
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements here address Section 5 of the PCPNDT Act mostly in the context of procedural challenges, bail, and quashing of proceedings, rather than on the substantive requirements of consent or prohibition on communicating sex. Courts in these orders have repeatedly quashed proceedings or granted relief where the complaint was not filed by the District Appropriate Authority as a body, where cognizance was taken on a police report, or where the raid and complaint were authorised by an officer without authority.1,4,2,8
A recurring issue is the mandatory nature of the complaint procedure under Section 28 of the Act, which courts have held bars cognizance except on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or authorised officer, and does not permit cognizance on a police report; this has led to quashing in several Allahabad cases. However, in a Gujarat case, the court held that Section 28 does not bar police investigation of IPC offences detected during a decoy trap, distinguishing the limitation on cognizance.1,2,8,5
Regarding Section 5 itself, the Supreme Court has upheld its constitutional validity and emphasised that the complete contents of Form 'F', which relates to consent and record-keeping, are mandatory and a condition precedent for any pre-natal diagnostic procedure; an incomplete Form raises a presumption against the medical practitioner. In bail matters, courts granted anticipatory bail to vendors of sonography machines accused under Section 5(2) and other sections, finding custodial interrogation unnecessary.3,6,7
Other decisions touched on procedural aspects: the suspension of registration must be construed strictly, and a suspension that ended on submission of registration meant the clinic was not suspended at the time of the alleged procedure. A second revision petition was held not maintainable under the BNSS. The Supreme Court's interim order recognised the rule-making power to prescribe qualifications for persons using ultrasound equipment.4,9,10
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 5
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;
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;
DisposedOpenThe High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by a sonography machine vendor accused under the PCPNDT Act and BNS for supplying a machine used for fetal sex determination. The court granted bail subject to bond and reporting conditions.
AllowedOpenThe High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by a sonography machine vendor accused under the PCPNDT Act and BNS for supplying a machine used for fetal sex determination. The court granted bail subject to bond and reporting conditions.
AllowedOpen
Show 6 more
Maintainability 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;
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.
DismissedOpenQuashing 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.
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;
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);
AllowedOpen
Show 4 more
District 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.;
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;
Punjab 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.
DisposedOpenBail granted under S.483 BNSS 2023 to HIV-positive Accused No.1 (Dagadu Baburao Patil) in Crime No.747/2024, Juna Rajwada PS, Kolhapur (Sessions Case 67/2025); charges under BNS 2023 ss.91, 319(2), 318(2), 3(5), Maharashtra Medical Practitioner Act 1961 ss.33 & 33A, MTP Act 1971 ss.3 & 4, PCPNDT Act 1994 s.5;
DisposedOpen