HC denies relief to gynaecologist suspended over Rs 25k sex determination case

Vadodara: While hearing a plea by a gynaecologist who was suspended under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act after allegedly demanding Rs 25,000 in a sex determination case, the Gujarat High Court observed that there was no illegality, arbitrariness or violation of principles of natural justice in the action taken by the State Appropriate Authority and thereby refused to interfere.

In his petition, the doctor asked the High Court to cancel the suspension of his registration under the PCPNDT Act, de-seal the three sonography machines at his hospital, and put the suspension on hold until the case was finally decided. He submitted there were procedural lapses in the sting operation, denied demanding Rs 25,000 for sex determination, and argued that non-filling of Form F was not a serious violation.

Dismissing his plea, Single Bench Justice A P Mayee said the action taken by the authority was lawful and that proper procedure was followed before suspending his registration. The Court noted that the District Appropriate Authority had issued notice and given the doctor a chance to be heard before passing its order in March 2025. The State Appropriate Authority later upheld this decision in July 2025.

"No error can be attributed to the findings arrived at by the Authorities… The petitioner has been trapped in a planned sting operation. The actions taken by the District Authority is in accordance with law… having found no illegality, arbitrariness or violation of principles of natural justice in the orders…passed by the District Appropriate Authority and the State Appropriate Authority, the present Special Civil Application is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed," observed the court.

Further, the court underlined that non-filling of Form F under the PCPNDT Act is not a minor or clerical lapse, even in cases claimed to be emergencies. As per the Act, filling in Form F for every ultrasound conducted on a pregnant woman is strictly mandatory. The Court reiterated that failure to comply with this requirement amounts to a cognizable and non-bailable offence under the PCPNDT Act.

Also read- Gujarat HC seeks Govt response on BAMS doctor prescribing allopathic medicines

The plea was filed by a gynaecologist and obstetrician who has been practising for 11 years, and runs a Hospital in Sabarkantha district’s Idar. The doctor had challenged the suspension of his registration and the sealing of three sonography machines at his hospital following a sting operation conducted in February 2025.

As per the Indian Express news report, the sting operation was conducted on February 18, 2025, during which the District Authority sealed all three sonography machines at the hospital and seized records, including Form F records, registers maintained under the PC & PNDT Act, OPD (Outpatient Department) register, CCTV footage and Form B.

On February 18, 2025, the doctor was asked to explain why his PCPNDT registration should not be suspended or cancelled. In an order dated March 24, 2025, the Authority suspended the petitioner’s registration under the PCPNDT Act and rejected his request for restoration of registration and desealing of the sonography machines.

Following this, the doctor filed an appeal before the State Appropriate Authority, Gandhinagar, against the district authority order. However, the state authority rejected his appeal on July 31, 2025 and upheld the March order of suspension of registration, noting that a criminal case was already pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Idar.

Before the High Court, the doctor argued that the sting operation suffered from procedural lapses and that the allegation of sex determination was disclosed for the first time only during the appeal through written remarks and was never part of the original notice or action.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner claimed, "There is no breach of the sections of the PCPNDT Act and the petitioner had no ill intention as the decoy patient’s name was duly entered in the OPD (Outpatient Department) register, which is now in custody of the authorities."

The doctor also submitted that the allegation regarding non-entry in the PCPNDT register is unsustainable as no time limit is prescribed in the Act, and that the (decoy) patient was an emergency case.

Regarding the allegation of demanding a bribe, the doctor submitted that the allegations of demanding and receiving Rs 25,000 were wholly unsupported, as there was no evidence of any demand or payment, disclosure or recovery of the pre-noted currency notes from the petitioner. He also contended that no sonography of the decoy patient was conducted, and several findings in the appellate order are contrary to the record.

Opposing the arguments, the state authorities' counsel argued that the petitioner had conducted a sonography on the decoy patient, which was audio-visually recorded, and that both the decoy and a witness confirmed he demanded Rs 25,000 to reveal the sex of the foetus, directing the money to be deposited at a medical store.

The doctor, however, claimed he was not given copies of the decoy’s statement or seizure records and alleged a lack of transparency in the appellate order. He also said the prolonged sealing of the machines affected his patients as the authorities made no effort to retrieve the data from the machines, though the same could have been copied.

After examining the records, the court concluded that no error could be found in the findings of the authorities. The Court observed that the doctor had been caught in a planned sting operation and that the action taken by the District Authority was in accordance with the law.

Stating that it found “no illegality, arbitrariness or violation of principles of natural justice” in the orders passed by the authorities, the Court dismissed the petition as being "devoid of merit."

The high court, in an oral order, upheld the decision to suspend the petitioner’s registration under the PCPNDT Act, 1994, and seal “all three sonography machines” at his hospital.

It ruled, "State Appropriate Authority under the PC&PNDT Act, Health and Family Welfare Department, Gujarat had held that the District Appropriate Authority had duly issued notice and afforded an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, that non-filling of Form F is not a minor or clerical lapse even in cases of alleged emergency."

As per the provisions of the Act, filling of Form F is strictly mandatory for every ultrasound performed on a pregnant woman to prevent sex determination and failure to comply with it is a non-bailable, cognizable offence.

Also read- Doctor among four arrested for illegal sex determination racket in Hisar