Supreme Court Orders State to Submit Data on PNDT Sex Determination Acquittal Cases

In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has sought detailed data from multiple States regarding the filing of appeals in acquittal cases under the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996. The order came in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that claims certain States are failing to comply with the mandatory provisions of the PNDT Rules, specifically the requirement to file appeals or revisions against acquittal orders within a specified time frame. The bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, has warned of adverse consequences if the States fail to comply with this directive.

Background of the Case

• The PIL, filed by Advocate Shobha Gupta, raises concerns that several States are not adhering to Rule 18-A(5)(vi) of the PNDT Rules, which mandates that an appeal, revision, or other proceedings be initiated within 30 days from the order of acquittal and not later than 15 days after the receipt of the acquittal order.
• The petition cites data showing that the States of Gujarat, Haryana, and Rajasthan have not filed appeals against acquittal orders in cases under the PNDT Act.
• This, according to the petition, represents a gross violation of the law aimed at preventing female foeticide through illegal sex determination practices.

Supreme Court’s Directive

• The Court has asked for comprehensive data from all States starting from January 1, 2015, detailing the number of cases where an acquittal was passed and whether an appeal, revision, or other legal proceedings were initiated in higher courts.
• The States have been directed to submit this data within a period of four weeks.
• The Court sternly noted that any non-compliance with this order would lead to “appropriate adverse actions”. “States must comply with their legal obligations, or the Court will be compelled to take necessary steps,” the bench remarked.

Non-Compliance with Rule 18-A(5)(vi)

The PNDT Act and its accompanying rules, specifically Rule 18-A(5)(vi), are designed to ensure strict oversight and timely legal action against violations of the Act, which prohibits sex selection and prenatal sex determination. The rule mandates that appeals must be filed within a strict timeframe to ensure swift action against acquittals in cases where there is evidence of misconduct.

• In this case, the PIL alleges that not only Gujarat, Haryana, and Rajasthan but also other States have failed to comply with the mandate of Rule 18-A(5)(vi).
• The petition further seeks directions from the Supreme Court to instruct authorities to punish violators of this rule under Section 25 of the PNDT Act, which provides for penalties and punishment for contraventions.

Respondents in the Case

The following States and Union Territories have been listed as respondents in the case:

• Union of India
• Uttar Pradesh
• Haryana
• Gujarat
• Jharkhand
• NCT of Delhi
• Rajasthan
• Jammu & Kashmir
• Karnataka
• Madhya Pradesh
• Maharashtra
• Punjab
• Assam
• West Bengal
• Nagaland
• Himachal Pradesh
• Manipur
• Andhra Pradesh
• Kerala
• Tamil Nadu
• Bihar

So far, only Union of India, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh have filed their counter-affidavits and submitted the necessary data.

Union of India’s Stance

The Union of India, in its affidavit, acknowledged that it is bound to take action in cases where States fail to comply with the PNDT Rules, particularly Rule 18-A(5)(vi). However, it clarified that the responsibility for the actual implementation of these provisions lies with the States. The Union government has emphasized that States are expected to initiate appeals and revisions promptly as per the mandate of the law.

• “The Union of India is committed to enforcing compliance with Rule 18-A(5)(vi), but the execution of these provisions is primarily the responsibility of the States,” the Union government stated in its affidavit.

The States that have yet to submit data have been given a deadline of four weeks from the Court’s order to comply.

Legal Implications of the Case

This case highlights a critical aspect of the PNDT Act, which is essential for curbing the illegal practice of sex selection in India. The Act, along with its rules, aims to address the gender imbalance by prohibiting the use of technologies like ultrasound for determining the sex of a fetus, which often leads to female foeticide.

• Failure by the States to appeal acquittals in such cases could weaken the enforcement of the law and hinder the fight against sex-selective abortions.
• The Supreme Court’s intervention in this matter signals the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that the States uphold their legal duties in combating gender-based discrimination and sex-selective practices.

Shobha Gupta and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 30/2022