Legal Analysis: Dr. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Citation: 2026 INSC (forthcoming) – Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9574 of 2018

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Date of Decision: June 11, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 9574 of 2018 against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench dated [not specified] in CrWP No. 1363 of 2017.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant, a doctor, challenged the order taking cognizance under Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) for alleged violations of Sections 4(3), 5, 6 and 29 of the Act and Rules 9, 8(5) and 18(9). The appellant argued that the Civil Surgeon was not the Appropriate Authority and that errors or blanks in Form 'F' were merely technical and inadvertent. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that: (i) the notification dated 15th May 2015 validly made the District Civil Surgeon the Appropriate Authority; (ii) non-maintenance of records in Form 'F' is not a trivial matter – it is the springboard for commission of the offence of foeticide; (iii) the proviso to Section 4(3) creates a presumption of contravention if records are deficient, unless the contrary is proved; (iv) the Act serves the constitutional objective of protecting the girl child under Article 21; (v) the declining sex ratio, though improving, still remains below the biologically expected level, warranting strict enforcement. The Court upheld the magistrate’s order taking cognizance, holding that the extent and manner of violations are questions of trial.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Dr. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Citation: 2026 INSC (forthcoming)

Criminal Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9574 of 2018

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Date of Decision: June 11, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Judgment and order dated [not specified] of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench in CrWP No. 1363 of 2017, dismissing the challenge to the order taking cognizance dated 9th June 2016 in RCC No. 16 of 2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ardhapur.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) – Section 2(a) (definition of Appropriate Authority), Section 4(3) (regulation of pre-natal diagnostic techniques – proviso creates presumption that deficiency/inaccuracy in record amounts to contravention of Sections 5 or 6), Section 5 (written consent of pregnant woman and prohibition of communicating sex of foetus), Section 6 (determination of sex prohibited), Section 20 (suspension of registration), Section 23 (offences and penalties), Section 28 (cognizance of offences – complaint by Appropriate Authority or authorised officer), Section 29 (maintenance of records), Section 32 (rule-making power).

• Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnos

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.