An Overview of Pre-

Conception and Pre-

Natal Diagnostic
Techniques
(Prohibition of Sex
Selection) Act, 1994

By – Dr. Humayun Rasheed Khan

Additional Director (Research)
JTRI, U.P., Lucknow
 The Cry from the Womb
“I am the Child
All the world waits for my coming.
All the earth watches with interest to see what
I shall become.
Civilization hangs in the balance.
For what I am, the world of tomorrow will be,
I am the Child
You hold in your hand my destiny.
You determine, largely, whether I shall
succeed or fail,
Give me, I pray you, these things that make
for happiness.
Train me, I beg you, that I may be a blessing
to the world.”
Mamie Gene Cole
 The Genesis of the Evil Practice
Female foeticide has its roots in the social
thinking which is fundamentally based on
certain notions, ego-centric traditions, pervert
perception of societal norms, and obsession
with ideas which are totally individualistic sans
the collective good. All involved in female
foeticide deliberately forget to realize that when
foetus of a girl child is destroyed, a woman of
future is crucified.
(Dwarka Prasad v. State of UP, 2013 (6) ALJ 13)
 Pervert
Perception of
Societal
Norms

Misuse of
Ego-centric Modern
Traditions Science

Female
Foeticide

Erosion of
Human Greed Moral Values
 Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao
Beti Padhao, Beti Bachao
As on 25th December, 2021
Total cases under PCPNDT in India – 3158
Total Convictions – 617
36 States/UT’s
18 States/UT’s – No Case
Medical Licenses Suspended/Cancelled – 415
Diagnostic Facilities Registered under PCPNDT
Act – 71,906
 W hy
PNDT
?
PNDT Act is a legal order
to address social disorder

‘It is different from other social legislations as it

does not involve any change in social behaviour and
practice rather regulates and demands ethical
medical practice & regulation of medical
technology that have the potential to be misused’
 Objective of PC PNDT Act
Prohibition
Regulation
Prevention
‘An Act to provide for the prohibition of sex selection, before or after conception, and for
regulation of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for the purposes of detecting genetic
abnormalities or metabolic disorders or chromosomal abnormalities or certain congenital
malformations or sex-linked disorders and for the prevention of their misuse for sex
determination leading to female foeticide; and, for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto’
 SEX SELECTION
INCLUDES

Any procedure, technique, test or

administration or prescription or
provision of anything for the purpose of
ensuring Strictly
or increasing the
prohibited probability
under
that an embryo Section
will be of a particular
3A , Sectionsex
5 (2) & Section
 Advisory Committee- shall
consist of-
* No person who has been
associated with the use OR
promotion of Pre-Natal Diagnostic
Techniques for determination of sex
*Three Medical Experts
or sex selection shall be appointed
-Gynecologist as a member of the advisory
-Pediatrician committee
-Medical geneticist
*One Legal Expert
*One representative from Govt. Publicity Department
*3 eminent social workers of which one should be female,
 t i o ns
Vi ola
o No placement of USG machine at
unregistered place [Sec. 3(1)] and no
advertisement in any way about
facilities of Pre-Natal determination
of sex [Section 22(1)]
o No centre should determine the sex of foetus
before or after conception [Sec. 6(a)(c)]
o No centre should employ unqualified person
[Sec. 3(2)]
o No person (including the person conducting
the PNDT procedures) should communicate
to any body sex of foetus by any
Rule
18 Dos
Code of conduct
* A Notice Board in local language showing that no
Sex determination/sex selection is done at the clinic
and determination of sex is prohibited under the act,
prominently out side
Rule 17the
(1) clinic
* Registration certificate be hung at conspicuous
place in the clinic where it can be seen easily
* A copy of booklet of PCPNDT Act to be available
@ centre
* A register be full of all details pertaining to the
usage of PNDT
* Along with the form F the referral slip should also be
annexed with it
* All the records & reports should be maintained for at least 2
yrs or more in case of any court matter
* In case of change in under mentioned the information in
writing is to be made available to the AA before 30 days:
– In c/o change in address [Rule 13]
– In c/o change or increase of the doctor (along with the requisite documents)
– In c/o damage or change in machine/equipment
* Ensure that no provisions of the Act & rules are violated.
* Display his/her name & designation prominently on the
dress worn by him/her.
* Write his/her name & designation in full under his/her
signature
 Don’ts
* Incomplete or wrong information will be deemed
as strict violation of PNDT Act.
* Conduct or associate with, or help in carrying out
detection or disclosures of sex of foetus in any
manner.
* Employ any person not possessing qualifications
necessary for carrying out pre-natal diagnostic
techniques & tests.
‘All offences
* Commit under
any the Act shall
professional be cognizable, non-
misconduct
compoundable & non-bailable’ Sec. 27
 of Ultrasound Machine
Rule 3
• A or
No organization shall sell, distribute, supply, rent, allow
authorize the use of any ultrasound machine or imaging
machine or scanner or any other equipment capable of
detecting sex of foetus whether on payment or otherwise to
any Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory,
Genetic Clinic or any other person or body not registered
under the Act.
• Further the provider of such machine/equipment to any
person/body registered under the Act shall:
a)send to the concerned State/UT Appropriate Authority and to the Central
Government, once in three months a list of those to whom the
machine/equipment has been provided;
 l t i
• Any medical geneticist, gynecologist, RMP or any

e n a persons renders his/her professional or technical

P services on honorary basis or contravenes any
provisions:
es – imprisonment for 3 years with fine upto Rs. 10,000/- Sec. 23
– Subsequent conviction, imprisonment for 5 years with (1)fine upto
Rs. 50,000/-
Sec.
– Suspension of registration by SMC if charges are framed by 23
court
– Removal of name from SMC register for 5 years in c/o(2)
conviction
• Permanent removal on subsequent offence
• Any person who uses the PNDT on a pregnant
woman for the purpose of sex selection shall be
liable for:
– Imprisonment for 3 years with fine upto Rs. 50,000/-
– Subsequent offence: Sec. 23
(3)
• Imprisonment for 5 years with fine upto Rs. 1,00,000/-
 Appeal by centre/s
[Sec. 21]

• Anybody aggrieved by
the decision of the AA at
sub-district level may
appeal to AA at district
level within 30 days of
the orders.
• Anybody aggrieved by
the decision of the DAA
may appeal to the SAA
within 30 days of the
order of DAA.
• Each appeal shall be
 State of Orissa v. Mamata Sahoo and others,
(2019) 7 SCC 486
Main Issues
• Inspection was conducted by the Tahsildar on 28-5-
2014 without any authorization/authority;
• The District Magistrate is an appropriate authority
under the PC and PNDT Act and as per the Office
Memorandum No. 19077/H of the Health and Family
Welfare Department dated 27-7-2007, the District
Magistrate cannot delegate its authority under the PC
and PNDT Act and, therefore, the entire proceedings
is not sustainable in law.
 State of Orissa v. Mamata Sahoo and others, (2019) 7
SCC 486
 The High Court quashed the proceedings initiated
against the respondents on the ground that authorization
had not been granted by the District Magistrate/District
Appropriate Authority.
 The impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly,
the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 29-6-
2017 in Mamata Sahoo v. State is set aside and this
appeal is allowed. Complaint Petition No. 2(C) CC
Case No. 43 of 2014 shall stand restored to the file of
the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal, who
shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
 Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies
of India (FOGSI) v. Union of India and others, (2019) 6
SCC 283
• There is presumption of guilt against person
conducting such ultrasonography under S. 4(3)
proviso for offences under Ss. 5 and 6 and penalty
under S. 23(1) and (2), in case of deficiency and
inaccuracy in record keeping.
• Hon’ble Court referred to the Beijing Declaration
and Platform for Action identified "violence against
women" to "include forced sterilization and forced
abortion, coercive/forced use of contraceptives,
female infanticide and pre-natal sex selection".
FOGSI v. Union of India and others, (2019) 6 SCC 283

• The PCPNDT Act, 1994 was conceived out of the urgency

for the prohibition of sex selection practices and prohibition
of the advertisement of the pre-natal diagnostic techniques
for detection/determination of sex.
• The main purpose of the Act is to ban the use of sex
selection and misuse of pre-natal diagnostic technique for
sex selective abortions and to regulate such techniques.
• There are only 586 convictions out of 4202 cases registered
even after 24 years of existence. It reflects the challenges
being faced by the appropriate authority in implementing
this social legislation. Diagnostic techniques except for the
purposes specified in Section 4(2).
 FOGSI v. Union of India and others, (2019) 6 SCC 283

• Section 4(2) provides for conducting of pre-natal diagnostic

techniques for the purpose of detection of abnormalities.
• Section 4(3) proviso makes it mandatory that person
conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman shall keep
complete record 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.
• Section 5 provides for written consent of pregnant woman and
prohibition of communicating the sex of foetus, whereas
Section 6 provides that, determination of sex is prohibited.
Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union
of India and others, (2015) 9 SCC 740
• Section 2(g) of the PCPNDT Act, 1994 provides for the "State Board"
which means a State Supervisory Board or Union Territory
Supervisory Board constituted under Section 16-A.
• As per Section 16-A(3), the State Board shall meet at least once in
four months. We have been apprised that the Board is meeting at least
once in four months. Regard being had to the fall in the sex ratio
which is really a burning problem for the nation, we would direct the
State Board to meet at least once in two months for the present.
• The meeting should be held by the State Board in an effective manner
by conferring adequate time to the members whose categories find
place in Section 16-A(2)(f) so that there is proper participation.
Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union
of India and others, (2015) 9 SCC 740
• The agenda of the meeting shall be circulated by
email to all the members before a week along with
the reports of the Deputy Commissioners for each
district so that there can be effective participation
by all the members.
• The appropriate authorities, when they find there is
violation of the provisions of the Act, must act with
strictness keeping in view the language employed
in Sections 20, 23 and 25 of the 1994 Act. 
Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union
of India and others, (2015) 9 SCC 740
• The appropriate authority shall develop a system so that
anyone, who comes to know of any illegality being
committed under the 1994 Act by any person, can send the
complaint/information to the said authority even
anonymously so that it can take appropriate action.
• Though the Act has come into force since 1994 and there
has not been much rise in the sex ratio which may indicate
the disrespect for the restriction on sex selection. We have
been apprised that only 44 cases have been instituted and
certain cases are pending in various courts in Delhi since
2002 onwards.
Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union
of India and others, (2015) 9 SCC 740
• The cases under this Act have to be given priority, for
litigations under the 1994 Act should be put to an end at the
earliest. Keeping in view the same, all the trial Magistrates
before whom the prosecutions under the 1994 Act are
pending shall finalize the same by 30-9-2015.
• A copy of this order be sent to the learned Chief Justice of
Delhi to issue a circular to all the District and Sessions
Judges of Delhi, so that they can, in their turn, circulate
amongst the Magistrates concerned to proceed accordingly.
• The prosecution shall fully cooperate in the early disposal of
these cases. There should not be laxity on the part of the
Public Prosecutors.
 Union of India v. Indian Radiological and Imaging
Association and others, (2018) 5 SCC 773
• The comprehensive directions issued in Voluntary Health Assn.
of Punjab, (2016) 10 SCC 265 must be read as integral to the
enforcement of a law which has been enacted by Parliament to
curb a grave social evil and to render the d statutory provisions
truly effective to curb the mischief which was sought to be
addressed by enacting the law.
• More specifically, the Supreme Court had required the States and
the Union Territories to implement the PCPNDT (Prohibition of
Sex Selection) (Six Months' Training) Rules, 2014 forthwith.
• The decision explains that the provision for training required
under the above subordinate legislation, is imperative to realize
the objects and purposes of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal
Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.
 Union of India v. Indian Radiological and Imaging
Association and others, (2018) 5 SCC 773

• The wisdom of the legislature in adopting the

policy cannot be substituted by the court in the
exercise of the power of judicial review. Prima
facie, the Rules are neither ultra vires the parent
legislation nor do they suffer from manifest
arbitrariness.
• It is directed in consequence that the judgment in
Voluntary Health Association of Punjab shall be
strictly enforced by all States and Union Territories
untrammeled by any order of any High Court or
any other court.
 Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India and
others, (2014) 11 SCC 545
• While referring to sections, 22, 26, 3-A, 3-B and 6 of the
PCPNDT Act, 1994, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
female foeticide is a social evil and it has been curbed by
legislature.
• Hon'ble Court further observed that the role of internet search
engines and social networking sites is crucial as the matter
was brought before the court that the websites run by Google,
Yahoo and Microsoft were not playing a responsible role.
• It was held that effort has to be made that social media sites
do not display objectionable contents even if information is
posted by third parties.
 Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India and others,
(2014) 11 SCC 545

• Union of India submitted that it could stop presentation of

any kind of items on internet relating to sex selection and
eventual abortion, effectively or regularly, if URL and IP
addresses are given along with other information.
• As an interim measure Google, Yahoo and Microsoft not to
advertise or sponsor any advertisement which would
violate S. 22 of the Act of 1994.
• Existing advertisements, if any, on any search engine, to be
withdrawn forthwith by respondents. Present order directed
to be put on policy page and "terms and conditions of
service" page by private respondent of internet companies.
 Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India and others,
(2014) 11 SCC 545

• Directed that when there is an electronic interface, all

efforts are to be made by respondents to see that there
is no violation of any provision of PCPNDT Act,
1994 and especially sex determination/ sex selection.
• Difficulty in stopping searches on websites-Yahoo
India, said that there are one thousand commands
"boy or girl/sex determination", picked up by search
engines, which is user generated, it is difficult to stop
it.
 Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India and
others, (2017) 2 SCC 514
• The term "advertisement" has to be understood in the
commercial sense and neither Section 22 of the 1994
Act nor the Explanation carries the meaning to a greater
horizon.
• Object of the 1994 Act is to provide for prohibition of
sex selection before or after conception, and for
regulation of prenatal diagnostic techniques for the
purpose of detecting genetic abnormalities or metabolic
disorders or chromosomal abnormalities or certain
congenital malformations or sex-linked disorders.
 Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India and
others, (2017) 2 SCC 514
• There can be no doubt that there has to be freedom of access to
information but, a significant one, such freedom cannot violate a law that
holds the field.
• We direct that the Union of India shall constitute a "Nodal Agency" and
give due advertisement in television, newspapers and radio by stating that
it has been created in pursuance of the order of this Court and anyone
who comes across anything that has the nature of an advertisement or any
impact in identifying a boy or a girl in any method, manner or mode by
any search engine shall be brought to its notice.
• Once it is brought to the notice of the Nodal Agency, it shall intimate the
search engine or the corridor provider concerned immediately and after
receipt of the same, the search engines are obliged to delete it within
thirty-six hours and intimate the Nodal Agency.
 Vinod Singh Chauhan v. State of UP and another, AIR
Online 2019 All 1536: 2019 (6) ALJ 562
• This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
with a prayer to quash the Criminal proceeding as well as
summoning order dated 21.05.2015 passed by CJM
Kanpur Dehat under Section 23, 25 & 28 of the PCPNDT
Act, 1994.
• The main thrust of the argument was that the Criminal
proceeding is barred by Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
• The applicant is not a doctor, he simply deals in the
business of sale and purchase of ultrasound machines,
therefore, he has been wrongly implicated in this case by
the administrative officers of the State because their
palms were not greased.
 Vinod Singh Chauhan v. State of UP and
another, AIR Online 2019 All 1536: 2019 (6)
ALJ 562
• He was found in the clinic when the inspection was
made and the ultrasound machine which was found
in the said clinic regarding that, no registration was
found nor were any documents found which was
necessary to be shown at the time of inspection as
per Rule 18 of the PCPNDT Rules, 1996 which is
punishable under Sections 23/24/25 of the Act.
• In the present case, it is quite likely that after full
trial, offence may he found to fall under Section 23
of P.C.P.N.D.T. Act.
 Vinod Singh Chauhan v. State of UP and
another, AIR Online 2019 All 1536: 2019 (6)
ALJ 562
• If the said stipulation of punishment be scrutinized in
the light of Section 468 I.P.C. which provides that for
an offence punishable for a term exceeding one year
but not exceeding three years, the period of
limitation would be three years but for an offence
punishable for more than three years, there is no time
limit prescribed.
• In case in the present matter, after trial the accused is
held guilty under Section 23 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act,
he could be punished with three years' imprisonment.
 Vinod Singh Chauhan v. State of UP and
another, AIR Online 2019 All 1536: 2019 (6)
ALJ 562
• In the present case that initially criminal proceeding
had been instituted against the applicant before the
CMM, Kanpur Nagar. Being Case No. 202 of 2013
while the inspection was made in the year 2010.
• But due to change of jurisdiction, the present case
had to be filed before the CMM, Kanpur Dehat,
• Hence, it cannot be said that the prosecution was
not launched against the accused applicant within
time period of three years. Hence, the proceedings
cannot be quashed simply on that count in this case.
 Dr. Anil Kumar Mishra and etc. v. State of UP
and others, 2011 (3) ALJ 624
• It was held that a combined reading of Section 2 (m), with Section
3 of the PC and PNDT Act, 1994 and Rule 3 (3) of the PNDT
Rules, 1996, clearly prohibit medical practitioners, except those,
who are registered under Section 2 (h) of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 and are entered in the State Medical Register to
carry out the ultrasound tests, and prohibit registration of centres,
which do not have their employment of such medical practitioners.
• The registration of medical practitioner under Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956, and inclusion of his name in the State Medical
Register is essential qualification for registration of ultrasound
clinics to conduct tests, other than tests for sex determination and
sex selection.
 Dr. Anil Kumar Mishra and etc. v. State of UP
and others, 2011 (3) ALJ 624
• The requirement of registration of genetic
clinic/ultrasound clinic/imaging clinic under Rule 3 (3) of
the PCPNDT Rules, 1996, is necessary for any person
having adequate space and equipment.
• He must either possess himself, or employ a person, who
is qualified under Rule 3 (3) of the PNDT Rules, 1996.
• Further even for a registered medical practitioner, the
additional qualifications of possessing post graduate
degree or diploma or six months training or one year's
experience in Sonography or image scanning is also must
for registration.
 Dwarka Prasad v. State of UP, 2013 (6) ALJ 13

• It was observed by the Hon’ble Court that the District

Magistrate has done a commendable job in carrying out
inspections, sealing clinics and cancelling registrations on
finding gross violations of the provisions of PC & PNDT
Act, 1994 and Rules of 1996, after giving notice to the
ultrasound clinics.
• We direct him to refer the petitioner’s case to MCI, for
suspension and for taking disciplinary action for
misconduct for cancelling his registration and initiating
criminal action against him for carrying out sex
determination tests; failing to maintain and furnish
records and in submitting prescribed Form-F.
Dr. Nitin Batra v. State of Uttarakhand & another,
2020 SCC Online Utt 352
In this case, a complaint under Section 23 of the Act was filed on
17.02.2017 against the petitioner for violation of Rule 13 of 1996
Rules.
After cognizance, an application was filed by the petitioner that
for violation of Rule 13, cognizance could have been taken under
Section 25 of the PCPNDT Act and for that offence, the
cognizance is time barred, therefore, proceedings be dropped.
Trial Court rejected that application and observed that since
cognizance had already been taken under Section 23 of the PCPNDT
Act, this issue may be examined at the time of framing of the charge.
However, charge under Section 25 of the PCPNDT Act was framed
against the petitioner.
 Dr. Nitin Batra v. State of Uttarakhand &
another, 2020 SCC Online Utt 352
 The petitioner moved an application that since charge u/S 25 of
the Act has been framed, it confirms that on the date when the
complaint was filed, it was time barred, therefore, proceedings be
dropped. This application was rejected by the trial court.
 The Honb’le High Court held that the cognizance was taken on
23.02.2017 under Section 23 of the Act for violation of Rule. 13
which mandates that the information of the change should be
given at least thirty days in advance seeking re-issuance of the
certificate.
 The violation was done finally on 09.07.2014, when the changed
sinologist started functioning without information and without re-
issuance of the registration certificate.
 Cognizance was taken on 23.02.2017 which is within three years
from the date when the offence was committed. It is within
limitation.
 Saksham Foundation Charitable v. Union of India,
MANU/UP/2097/2014

• In this case, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity

of Section 5(2) and Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 6 of the
PCPNDT Act, 1994.
• The petitioner also sought a writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus, directing the opposite parties to legalize the Sex
Determination and make it compulsory for the person conducting
the sex determination test (specifically ultrasonography) to
clearly and in detail disclose the sex of the foetus in the
ultrasound report along with the print of the image of the foetus
(which will be conclusive proof of the sex of the foetus) till the
time it comes up with a better and more effective alternative
provision for dealing with the evil practice of sex selection.
 Saksham Foundation Charitable v. Union of India,
MANU/UP/2097/2014

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS
• The prohibition of sex determination violates the rights of
the unborn child and is, therefore, contrary to Article 21 of
the Constitution of India.
• In the alternate, it is only when a compulsory disclosure is
made by the medical professional conducting an
ultrasonography test of the sex of the unborn foetus, can a
record be maintained of the sex of the foetus. In the
absence of disclosure, it has been submitted, there is only a
moral duty of the doctor not to disclose and in
consequence, the female foetus is ultimately aborted.
Saksham Foundation Charitable v. Union of India, thru.
Secretary, MANU/UP/2097/2014

 The Hon’ble Court held that having regard to the

social evil, which Parliament sought to remedy by
enactment of the provisions of the Act, we see no
ground to hold that the provisions, which are under
challenge, are unconstitutional.
 On the contrary, the Act is designed to ensure that
the fundamental human right of the mother and of
the unborn foetus is not violated by the misuse of
sex selection diagnostic procedures, resulting in
female foeticide.
 The Road Ahead

“Every child comes

with the message
that God is not yet
discouraged of man”

Rabindranath Tagore
 Important Cases
• CEHAT and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors, (2003) 8 SCC 406
• Hemanta Rath v. Union of India; MANU/OR/0093/2008
• Mr. Vijay Sharma &Mrs. Kirti Sharma v. Union of India,
MANU/MH/0668/2007
• Saksham Foundation Charitable Society v. Union of India;
MANU/UP/2097/2014
• Vinod Soni v. Union of India; MANU/MH/0293/2005
• Amita R. Patel v. State of Gujarat and Anr;
MANU/GJ/1040/2008
• Radiological and Imaging Association (State Chapter-Jalna) v.
Union of India (UOI) through Its Secretary; AIR 2011 BOM 171
• Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India & Ors; (2018) 3 SCC
229
 Important Cases
• Dr. Sanjiv Kaushal v. State of Haryana; 2017 Indlaw PNH
1717
• Dr. Tanuja v. State of Maharashtra; 2018 SCC Online Bom
2143
• Dr. Tejinder Pal Singh Multani v. State of Punjab; 2014 Indlaw
PNH 3758
• Malpani Infertility Clinic Private Limited and others v.
Appropriate Authority; 2004 (4) MahLJ 1058
• Manish Agrawal v. State of Gujarat; 2010 (2) G.L.R. 977
• Preet Nursing Home v. State of Punjab and others; 2014
Indlaw PNH 3715
• Dr. Sadanand Madhukar Ingle v. Maharashtra Medical
Council; 2014 (4) MahLJ 360
 Important Cases
• Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of India
and Ors; (2013) 4 SCC 1
• Center for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes
(CEHAT) and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors;
(2001)5SCC577
• Qualified Private Medical Practitioners and Hospitals
Association v. State of Kerala; 2006 (4) Ker LJ 81
• Dr. Pradipchandra Mohanlal Gandhi and Anr v.
Maharashtra Medical Council, through Its Registrar and
Anr; 2012(11) LJSOFT 1
• Dr. Mrs. Kakoly Borthakuar v. Dr. Pramodkumar s/o G.
Babar and Others; (2010(8) LJSOFT (URC) 152)
 Important Cases
• Dr. Varsha Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh;
MANU/UP/0857/2006
• Dr. Devender Bohra v. State of Haryana and Others;
(2010)159 PLR 446
• Anil Kumar Mishra v. State of UP and Others;
MANU/UP/0514/2011
• Suo Motu v. State of Gujarat; 2009 CRI. L. J. 721
• Dr. Manoj Lamba v. State of Haryana and Others;
MANU/PH/1267/2011
• Dr. Kalpesh J. Patel v. State of Gujarat and Others;
MANU/GJ/0994/2011
• Chitra Agrwal v. State of Uttaranchal and Others; AIR 2006
Utr 78
 Important Cases
• J. Sunderrajan vs. Dr. S.G. Dalvi and Anr; 2009(6) LJSOFT 9
• Subhash Gupta vs. State; 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3409
• Dr. Ravindra s/o Shivappa Karmudi vs. State of Maharashtra;
2012(10) LJSOFT 138
• Varsha Laxman Deshpande vs. The Municipal Commissioner,
Mumbai Municipal Corporation and others; 2014 SCC OnLine
Bom 64
• Dr. Arvind Pal Singh Gambhir and another vs. State of Punjab
and Ors; 2013 SCC OnLine P&H 12762
• Suo Moto vs. State of Gujrat 2008 SCC OnLine Guj 294 27
• Radiological & Imaging Association vs. Union Of India 2011
SCC OnLine Bom 1182
 Important Cases
• M/S Malpani Infertility Clinic Pvt. Ltd. And Others v.
Appropriate Authority, PNDT Act and Others, AIR 2005 Bom.
26
• Suresh Manjibhai Prajapati v. State of Gujrat and Anr.
C/SCA/265/2015
• Dr. Mrs. Sudha Samir v. State of Haryana and Others 2010
SCC Online P&H 1611, Dr. Mrs. Maninder Ahuja v. State of
Haryana and Others, Dr. R.D. Negi v. State of Haryana and
Others
• Dr. Sujit Govind Dange v. State of Maharashtra and Others
2012 SCC Online Bom 1199
• Satya Trilok Kesari @ Satyanarayan S/o Trilokchand Lohia v.
State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2012 (6) LJSOFT 389
 Important Cases
• Dr. Pradipchandra Mohanlal Gandhi and Anr. v. Maharashtra
Medicial Council, Through its Registrar and Anr. 2012 (11)
LJSOFT 1
• Dr. Varsha Gautam v. State of UP and Others 2006 SCC
Online All 1611
• Dr. Mrs. Kakoloy Borthakuar v. Dr. Pramodkumar s/o G.
Babar and Others 2010(8) LJSOFT (URC) 152
• Dr. Preetinder Kaur and Others v. The State of Punjab and
Others 2010 SCC Online P&H 2134
• Dr. Kavita Pramod Kamble (lodhe) v. State of Maharashtra
and Anr. http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in
• Dr. Manoj Lamba v. State of Haryana and Others 2011 SCC
Online P&H 5387
 Important Cases
• Dr. Mrs. Suhasini Umesh Karanjkar vs. Kolhapur Municipal
Corporation and Others 2011 SCC Online Bom 633
• Vinod Soni and Anr. Vs. Union of India (UOI) 2005 CriLJ
3408
• Mr. Vijay Sharma and Others vs. Union of India (UOI) AIR
2008 Bom 29
• M/s Malpani Infertility Clinic Pvt. Ltd. And Others vs.
Appropriate Authoritity, PNDT Act and Others AIR 2005 Bom
26
• Dr. Mrs. Sudha Samir vs. State of Haryana and Others etc.
http://judis.nic.in
• Dr. Preetinder Kaur and Others vs. The State of Punjab and
Others 2011 CriLJ 876
 Important Cases
• Dr. Varsha Gautam v. State of U.P and Others
Manu/UP/0857/2006
• Dr. Devender Bohra v. State of Haryana and other Respondent
(2010) 159 PLR 446
• Qualified Private Medical Practitioners And Hospital
Association v. State of Kerala 2006 (4) KarLJ 81
• Suo Moto v. State of Gujrat 2009 CRI.L.J 721
• Dr. Mrs. Suhasini Umesh Karanjkar v. Kolhapur Municipal
Corporation and Anr. 2011(4) AIR BomR 326
• Radiological and Imaging Association v. Union of India (UOI)
and Others MANU/MH/1050/2011
• Chitra Agrawal v. State of Uttranchal and Ors. AIR 2006 Utr
78
 Important Cases
• J. Sundarrajan v. Dr. S.G Dalvi and Anr. 2009(6)LJSOFT 9
• Dr. K.L Sehgal v. Office of District Appropriate Authority and
Dr. Sonal Randhawa v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
AIR2011 Delhi, 48 (NOC)
• Sadhu Ram Kusla v. Ranjit Kaur and Others http:/judis.nic.in
• Dr. Pradeep Ohri v. State of Punjab and Anr. AIR 2008 P H
108
• The Appropriate Authority , Dr. Sambhaji Patil v. Dr. Prashant
Navnitlal Gujrathi, Date of order: 27/07/2010
• Mumbai Municipal Corporation(Through Legal Assistant of
G/N- Ward) v. Chhaya Rajesh Tated, Aged 42 yrs. 2)
Shubhangi suresh Adkar, Age 62 yrs. Date of Order
14/08/2009