Gujarat High Court Upholds Suspension of Gynaecologist under PCPNDT Act

Background of the Case

In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court addressed a plea from a gynaecologist suspended under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act. The suspension followed allegations that the doctor demanded Rs 25,000 for sex determination services. The Court determined that there was no illegality, arbitrariness, or violation of natural justice principles in the actions taken by the State Appropriate Authority, thus choosing not to intervene.

Details of the Petition

The gynaecologist, who has been practicing for 11 years and operates a hospital in Idar, Sabarkantha district, sought the cancellation of his suspension under the PCPNDT Act. Additionally, he requested the de-sealing of three sonography machines at his facility and a temporary hold on his suspension until the case was resolved. The doctor claimed procedural errors during the sting operation that led to his suspension, denied demanding Rs 25,000, and argued that the failure to fill Form F should not be considered a serious violation.

Court’s Findings

Justice A P Mayee, presiding over the case, dismissed the doctor’s petition, asserting that the authority’s actions were lawful and followed proper procedures. The Court noted that the District Appropriate Authority had issued a notice and allowed the doctor an opportunity to present his case before the order was issued in March 2025. The State Appropriate Authority later upheld this decision in July 2025.

The Court emphasized, “No error can be attributed to the findings arrived at by the Authorities… The petitioner has been trapped in a planned sting operation.” It affirmed that the actions of the District Authority were lawful and found no violations of natural justice in their orders.

Non-compliance with Form F

The Court highlighted that failing to fill out Form F under the PCPNDT Act is not a trivial oversight, even in emergencies. According to the Act, completing Form F for every ultrasound performed on a pregnant woman is mandatory. The Court reiterated that non-compliance constitutes a cognizable and non-bailable offense under the PCPNDT Act.

Details of the Sting Operation

The gynaecologist’s suspension followed a sting operation conducted on February 18, 2025, during which all three sonography machines were sealed, and various records were seized. These included Form F records, registers maintained under the PC & PNDT Act, OPD register, CCTV footage, and Form B. Subsequently, the Authority suspended the doctor’s registration on March 24, 2025, rejecting his appeal for restoration and de-sealing of the machines.

Appeal and Further Proceedings

After the district authority’s decision, the doctor appealed to the State Appropriate Authority in Gandhinagar, which dismissed his appeal on July 31, 2025, citing an ongoing criminal case against him in the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s court in Idar.

Before the High Court, the doctor contended that procedural lapses marred the sting operation and that the allegation of sex determination was introduced only during the appeal process. His counsel argued that there was no violation of the PCPNDT Act and that the decoy patient’s name was appropriately recorded in the OPD register.

Opposition’s Argument

The state authorities’ counsel countered that the doctor did perform a sonography on the decoy patient, which was recorded, and that both the decoy and a witness confirmed the demand for Rs 25,000 to disclose the fetus’s sex. The doctor, however, claimed that he had not received copies of the decoy’s statements or seizure records, highlighting a lack of transparency in the appellate process.

Conclusion of the Court

Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court concluded that the findings of the authorities were valid. It reiterated that the doctor had been caught in a deliberate sting operation and that the actions taken by the District Authority were lawful. The petition was dismissed as “devoid of merit,” and the High Court upheld the decision to suspend the gynaecologist’s registration under the PCPNDT Act and to seal the sonography machines.

The ruling confirmed, “The State Appropriate Authority held that the District Appropriate Authority had duly issued notice and provided an opportunity for hearing, and that non-filling of Form F is not a minor or clerical lapse, even in alleged emergencies.” The Court reinforced that compliance with Form F is essential to prevent sex determination and that failure to do so is a serious offense under the law.