Section 6. Determination of sex prohibited
On and from the commencement of this Act,--
(a) no Genetic Counselling Centre or Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic shall conduct or cause to be conducted in its Centre, Laboratory or Clinic, pre-natal diagnostic techniques including ultrasonography, for the purpose of determining the sex of a foetus;
(b) no person shall conduct or cause to be conducted any pre-natal diagnostic techniques including ultrasonography for the purpose of determining the sex of a foetus;
1 [(c) no person shall, by whatever means, cause or allow to be caused selection of sex before or after conception.]
How courts have applied section 6
- A complaint under Section 28 must be filed by the District Appropriate Authority acting as a body; action by a single member is illegal.1,2
- Evidence seized during an illegal search is not automatically excluded; it may be relied on if relevant and admissible.2
- A prior discharge order in a police investigation does not bar the Appropriate Authority from initiating independent complaint proceedings under Section 28.2
- Complete contents of Form 'F' are mandatory; an incomplete form raises a presumption against the medical practitioner.3
- Section 28's complaint restriction does not bar police investigation into IPC offences connected to sex determination and foeticide.4
- Specific allegations attracting ingredients of the offence defeat a quashing petition; innocence is a disputed fact for trial.5,6,7
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
In the judgements here, the courts most often dealt with challenges to proceedings under the Act: quashing of FIRs and complaints, discharge applications, and bail. The recurring questions were whether complaints had been lodged by the proper authority, whether the allegations disclosed the ingredients of the offences, and whether the accused were entitled to bail. These orders connected to Section 6 mostly at the level of procedure and prima facie assessment, rather than a close reading of the prohibition in Section 6 itself.2,1,8,3
A significant line of rulings concerned the authority to initiate and pursue proceedings. Courts held that a raid authorised and a complaint filed by a single member of the District Appropriate Authority, without any resolution of the body constituted under Section 17, was illegal. But the Supreme Court distinguished between the lawfulness of a search and the admissibility of evidence, ruling that evidence seized during an illegal search is not automatically excluded if relevant. It further held that a prior discharge order in a related police investigation does not bar the Appropriate Authority from instituting independent complaint proceedings under Section 28. Another court held that Section 28 permits cognizance only on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or an authorised person, but does not bar police investigation into IPC offences detected during an inquiry prompted by the authority's complaint.1,2,4
On the merits of offences under the Act, judgements stressed the mandatory nature of record-keeping. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act and held that Form 'F' is a condition precedent for any pre-natal diagnostic test; an incomplete Form 'F' raises a presumption of doubt against the medical practitioner, and non-maintenance of records is the base of the offence, not a clerical technicality. Quashing was refused where the complaint and final report contained specific allegations attracting the ingredients of offences under Sections 3(3), 3A, 6(b)(c) and 23(1)(2), the courts holding that contentions of innocence were disputed questions of fact for trial. Conversely, a discharge was restored where the radiologist had left the clinic before the raid and his name lingering on the registration panel was insufficient, and where the suspension of registration had lapsed on submission of the required documents.3,5,6,7,9,10
Bail orders in the sample turned on the ordinary considerations of the nature and gravity of the offence, the existence of a prima facie case, and the necessity of custodial interrogation. Bail was refused where the allegation was that a sex-selective abortion had been performed after sex determination, the court noting the gravity and impact on society. It was granted to vendors of sonography machines where custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary, and to other accused on bonds conditioned on cooperation and non-interference with evidence. One judge granted anticipatory bail despite noting a prior cancellation of bail for non-compliance and two previous similar cases, holding custodial interrogation unnecessary in the circumstances.11,12,13,14,15,16
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 6
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;
DismissedOpenSupreme Court of India, SLP(Crl.) No. 380 of 2021, decided 21.01.2021 (Shantanagoudar J.): bail under s.439 CrPC denied in a PC&PNDT Act (ss.6, 23, 27) sex-determination/sex-selective abortion case; sting operation and seizure of unregistered ultrasound machine showed prima facie case; no parity with co-accused;
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 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
Dr. 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)OpenPCPNDT 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.
DismissedOpenBail 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;
Anticipatory bail granted despite earlier cancellation; Madras HC CRL OP No.7166 of 2026, Justice C.KUMARAPPAN, decided 23-03-2026; petitioner D.Satheesh Kumar S/o. Devaraj; offences under Sections 6(a), 6(b) r/w. 23 of PCPNDT Act 1994 (sex-determination scans);
AllowedOpenTelangana 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;
DismissedOpenQuashing 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.
DisposedOpenCriminal 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.
DismissedOpenInterim 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.
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;
DismissedOpen
Show 4 more
Anticipatory bail granted — High Court of Judicature at Madras (K. Rajasekar J.), CRL OP No. 27653 of 2025, decided 10-10-2025: petitioner Rajkumar (accused-1) apprehending arrest for alleged offences under Sections 6(a), 6(b), 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prevention of sex Selection)…
AllowedOpenBail granted; sex determination/abortion of female foetus case under PCPNDT Act 1994 (Sections 6(a), 6(b), 23) and BNS 2023 (Sections 88, 66); petitioner Kanagavalli (A5 of 5 accused), Crime No.116 of 2025, Kurisilapattu PS, Tirupathur District; custody since 09.09.2025;
AllowedOpenMadras High Court, Crl.O.P.No.27103 of 2025, decided 03-10-2025 by Justice N. Senthilkumar. Bail granted to Ilavarasi, A4 in Crime No.116 of 2025 of Kurisilapattu Police Station, Tirupattur District, for offences under Sections 88, 66 BNS, Section 5(2) MTP Act 1971, and Sections 6(a), 6(b) & 23 PCPNDT Act 1994…
AllowedOpenAnticipatory bail - female foeticide / sex-selective abortion allegations. G. Sukumar (A2) sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS in Crime No. 116 of 2025 (Kurisilapet Police Station, Tirupathur District) registered for offences under Sections 88 r/w 66 of BNS, Section 5(2) of the Medical Termination of…
AllowedOpen