Recently, in an order addressing the misuse of public interest litigation in matters concerning medical qualifications and compliance under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC & PNDT Act), the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the State to ensure rigorous enforcement of the Act and its corresponding Rules across the State.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf passed the direction while dismissing a petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by a journalist alleging irregularities at a private sonography centre and questioning the qualification of one of its directors.
The petitioner had sought directions for the State authorities to enforce the provisions of the PC & PNDT Act and the Rules of 2014, specifically relating to the qualification of doctors and staff performing sonography on pregnant women. He further urged an inquiry against a particular diagnostic centre, asserting that its director lacked the required qualification under the 2014 Rules.
The State, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, submitted that the petition “appears to be motivated” and was primarily aimed at targeting a specific individual. It was pointed out that on the petitioner’s earlier complaint, the competent authorities had promptly taken action and even sealed the premises of the concerned centre, which was later de-sealed after compliance. The State assured the Bench that it remained vigilant and “as and when any instance would come to the notice of the State authorities, appropriate action in accordance with the Act and Rules would be taken.”
The Court observed that although the petitioner made general allegations about violations of the Act and Rules, “no instances have been given by the petitioner” except those concerning the single institute. The Bench further noted that the sonography report produced by the petitioner did not “prima facie show any infraction by respondent No. 6 and 7.”
The Court also recorded that the petitioner, claiming to be a journalist, refused to disclose the source of his information regarding the alleged unrecognised qualification of the doctor, invoking journalistic privilege. Taking note of these circumstances, the Bench remarked that “it appears that the present petition is a motivated petition filed by the petitioner targeting only one individual against whom even a complaint was made to the Chief Medical Officer and State authorities.”
Having found no material to establish a broader public injury or systemic violation, the Court concluded that “no further action is called for on the petition and the said petition is accordingly dismissed.” Nevertheless, the Bench issued a clear directive to the government to ensure strict adherence to the PC & PNDT Act and its rules across the State, emphasising the continuing duty of the authorities to prevent sex-selective practices and unqualified sonography procedures.
Case Title: Rambhuvan Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Case No.: W.P. No. 36098 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinay Saraf
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Nilesh Kotecha
Advocatet for Respondent: DAG Vivek Sharma
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
