He Said The Records Were The Staff's Job. The Court Said The Records Are The Law.
A doctor challenged the prosecution of his sonography centre, arguing the Civil Surgeon was not the right authority and that record-keeping was for the hospital staff. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
The Court held that the District Civil Surgeon is the appropriate Authority under the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, so the proceedings were in accordance with law. It emphasised that keeping records is essential to the Act and to its avowed purpose. The appeal was dismissed as bereft of merit.
- The District Civil Surgeon is the appropriate Authority. That challenge to competence fails.
- Records are not clerical. They are essential to the Act working at all, which is why lapses are prosecuted rather than corrected.
- Delegating to staff is not a defence for the person running the centre.
- The Court framed the stakes broadly, closing on the hope that there will no longer be a question of whether a girl child deserves to be born.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Bench
- Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 635
- Reported
- [2026] 7 S.C.R. 75
- Case
- CRIMINAL APPEAL/3064/2026
- Decided
- 10 June 2026
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
What happened
The Authority searched the appellant's premises, seized equipment and issued a notice under Section 20(1) calling for an explanation. He appeared before the Advisory Committee, which concluded that prima facie material existed as to violations under the Act.
The sonography centre was suspended and the machine seized, though it was later released to him. Proceedings followed before the trial court, which directed issuance of process under Section 204 CrPC for offences punishable under Section 23 of the Act for violations of Sections 4(3), 5, 6 and 29 and of Rules 9, 8(5) and 18(9).
The two defences, and why they failed
The first was competence: that the Civil Surgeon was not the appropriate Authority. The Court held the District Civil Surgeon is the appropriate Authority under the Act, and that the proceedings were accordingly in accordance with law.
The second was responsibility: that maintaining and updating records was the job of the hospital staff and not of the appellant. The Court held that keeping records is essential to the Act and to its avowed purpose — the record is the mechanism by which the prohibition is enforced at all.
The criminal revision failed, the High Court rejected the challenge to cognizance, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as bereft of merit.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Who is the appropriate Authority under the PCPNDT Act?
The District Civil Surgeon, on this judgment, and proceedings initiated by that office are in accordance with law.
Is poor record-keeping really an offence?
Yes. The Court held record-keeping is essential to the Act and its purpose, and the prosecution under Section 23 was upheld.
Running a diagnostic centre under the Act
- Treat Form F and the statutory registers as the centre's principal legal obligation, not paperwork delegated to staff.
- Do not build a defence on who physically filled the register; responsibility rests with the person running the centre.
- Check who your appropriate Authority is — the District Civil Surgeon holds that office on this judgment.
- Respond substantively to a Section 20(1) notice; the Advisory Committee's prima facie view carried through to prosecution here.
Source. Supreme Court of India, 2026 INSC 635, [2026] 7 S.C.R. 75, CRIMINAL APPEAL/3064/2026, decided 10 June 2026 by Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks Supreme Court of India and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in