The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted four more weeks to states to file their responses on a plea seeking effective enforcement of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act, which prohibits the use of prenatal diagnostic methods to determine the sex of a foetus.
A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan noted that while most states had submitted their affidavits, about five states were yet to comply. The court was informed that despite earlier directions issued in September 2024, several states had failed to indicate the number of cases, appeals, and revisions pursued under the law.
“Have the states filed their counters?” the bench asked during the hearing. Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh, appearing in the matter, confirmed that a few states were still in default. He further highlighted that in many cases of acquittals, appeals were not filed, thereby frustrating the object of the law.
The bench observed that prosecution under the Act had been poorly conducted, resulting in numerous acquittals. It warned the states that while no costs were being imposed at present, penalties could follow if delays continued.
- States have been given four weeks to file their affidavits, with the matter posted for October 10.
- Counsel for one of the defaulting states assured the court that its affidavit would be filed within two weeks.
- Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh was appointed amicus curiae to assist the bench.
The petition, filed by advocate Shobha Gupta, contends that the PCPNDT Act and its rules are not being implemented in “letter and spirit.” It stresses that under the statutory framework, authorities are duty-bound to file appeals against acquittals to secure convictions and deter violations.
The Supreme Court had in September 2022 issued notice to the Centre on the plea, which sought:
- Strict compliance with the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1966.
- Directions for initiating punishment under Section 25 of the PCPNDT Act against offenders.
The petitioner argued that the law’s core purpose — saving unborn children from sex-selective practices — was being defeated by weak enforcement. Statistics presented to the court revealed that conviction rates under the Act remain alarmingly low across states.
