PCPNDT Section 28: Any Citizen Can Prosecute a Clinic

You do not need the government to act first. Under section 28(1)(b) of the PCPNDT Act, any person who gives fifteen days written notice to the Appropriate Authority can then file a complaint in court themselves, and the court must take cognizance of it. The Explanation to that clause says the word person includes a social organisation.

That is a real, rarely used power. Most people believe a sex determination complaint dies if the health department sits on it. Section 28 says otherwise: departmental inaction is exactly the situation the clause was written for.

1. Write to the Appropriate Authority. Your notice must set out the alleged offence and your intention to make a complaint to the court. Section 28(1)(b) requires notice of not less than fifteen days, given in the prescribed manner.
2. Count fifteen clear days. The clause says not less than fifteen days. Filing on day ten hands the defence a clean technical objection.
3. File the complaint in the right court. Section 28(2) allows only a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class to try an offence under this Act. No other court may.
4. Ask the court for the department's own records. This is the step almost nobody uses. Section 28(3) says that where a complaint has been made under clause (b), the court may, on demand by such person, direct the Appropriate Authority to make available copies of the relevant records in its possession. Your complaint can be built on the department's own inspection files.

Section 17 answers this precisely, and the composition is not what most people expect.

Under section 17(2) the State Government appoints one or more Appropriate Authorities for the whole or part of the State, having regard to the intensity of the problem of pre-natal sex determination leading to female foeticide. Section 17(1) gives the same power to the Central Government for the Union territories.

Where the Authority is appointed for the whole of a State or Union territory, section 17(3)(a) makes it a three-member body:

• An officer of or above the rank of the Joint Director of Health and Family Welfare, as Chairperson
• An eminent woman representing a women's organization
• An officer of the Law Department of the State or Union territory

The first proviso to section 17(3)(a) required States and Union territories to constitute that multi-member Authority within three months of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Regulation and Prevention of Misuse Amendment Act, 2002 coming into force. The second proviso requires any vacancy to be filled within three months of it occurring. Where the Authority is appointed for only a part of a State, section 17(3)(b) leaves its rank to the appointing government.

Section 17(4) then lists its functions. The ones you can hold it to are these:

Clause © is the one to quote when a complaint has been pending for months. The words are investigate and take immediate action, not consider at the next meeting.

You do not have to choose between complaining to the Authority and going to court. Section 20(2) expressly says a suspension or cancellation is without prejudice to any criminal action.

1. Section 20(1): the Appropriate Authority may, suo motu or on complaint, issue a show cause notice to the centre, laboratory or clinic asking why its registration should not be suspended or cancelled, for the reasons stated in the notice.
2. Section 20(2): after a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and having regard to the Advisory Committee's advice, if satisfied there has been a breach, it may suspend the registration for such period as it thinks fit, or cancel it.
3. Section 20(3): where the Authority is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest, it may suspend a registration without issuing any notice at all, for reasons to be recorded in writing.
4. Section 21: the clinic then has thirty days from receipt of the order to appeal, to the Central Government against a Central Appropriate Authority order, and to the State Government against a State Appropriate Authority order.

Section 23(2) adds a professional consequence that runs alongside the criminal case. The Appropriate Authority must report the registered medical practitioner's name to the State Medical Council. Once charges are framed by the court, the Council may suspend registration until the case is disposed of. On conviction, the name is removed from the register for five years for a first offence and permanently for a subsequent one.

This is the most misunderstood part of the Act, and it needs saying plainly.

Section 23(4) states, for the removal of doubts, that section 23(3) shall not apply to the woman who was compelled to undergo such diagnostic techniques or such selection.

Section 24 goes further and reverses the burden. Notwithstanding anything in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the pregnant woman was compelled by her husband or any other relative to undergo the technique for a purpose outside section 4(2). That person is then liable for abetment of the offence under section 23(3) and is punishable for it.

So the statutory default is that the woman was coerced and the relative who coerced her is the one facing the section 23(3) punishment.

Before the fifteen-day notice, get the paper. The Appropriate Authority is a public authority, and its registration and inspection records are exactly what section 28(3) contemplates.

To,
The Public Information Officer,
Office of the Appropriate Authority under the PCPNDT Act, 1994,
Office of the Chief Medical Officer / District Health Office,
[District] .

Subject: Information under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 regarding
implementation of the PCPNDT Act, 1994.

Sir/Madam,

Under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, please provide:

1. A copy of the notification appointing the Appropriate Authority for this
   district or State under Section 17, naming its members and their
   designations as required by Section 17(3).

2. The number of Genetic Counselling Centres, Genetic Laboratories and Genetic
   Clinics registered in this district, with a copy of the current register.

3. The number of complaints received under Section 17(4)(c) in the last three
   financial years, and in respect of each, the date received, the date of
   inspection and the action taken.

4. The number of show cause notices issued under Section 20(1), the number of
   registrations suspended and cancelled under Section 20(2), and the number
   suspended without notice under Section 20(3), year-wise.

5. The number of complaints filed in court by the Appropriate Authority under
   Section 28(1)(a) in the last three financial years, and the outcome of each.

6. The number of names reported to the State Medical Council under
   Section 23(2), year-wise.

7. The dates of the last three meetings of the Advisory Committee, with the
   minutes.

I enclose the prescribed application fee of ₹10. If any part of this
information is held by another public authority, please transfer that part
under Section 6(3) within five days. Please supply the information within the
period fixed by Section 7(1).

Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Full postal address]
[Date]

Point 3 is the one that shows inaction on the record, and inaction on the record is what makes the section 28(1)(b) route worth taking. Build the application with the AI RTI Drafter, set the reply date with the Timeline Tracker, and if the reply is evasive, run it through the PIO Reply Checker.

• Waiting for the department. Section 28(1)(b) exists precisely because the Authority may not act. Fifteen days notice, then court.
• Filing before the fifteen days. The clause says not less than fifteen days. Filing early is a free defence point.
• Omitting the intention to complain. The notice must state both the alleged offence and your intention to make a complaint to the court. A bare grievance letter is not a section 28 notice.
• Going to the wrong court. Section 28(2) restricts trial to a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class.
• Forgetting section 28(3). Ask the court to direct the Authority to produce its records. This right exists only for the clause (b) complainant.
• Naming the pregnant woman as an accused. Section 23(4) excludes a woman who was compelled, and section 24 presumes she was.

Yes. Section 28(1) bars a court from taking cognizance except on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or an authorised officer under clause (a), or under clause (b) by a person who has given not less than fifteen days notice, in the prescribed manner, to the Appropriate Authority of the alleged offence and of the intention to make a complaint to the court.

Yes. The Explanation to section 28(1) says that for the purpose of that clause, person includes a social organisation.

Two things, on the text of section 28(1)(b): the alleged offence, and your intention to make a complaint to the court. It must go to the Appropriate Authority, in the manner prescribed, and the fifteen days must expire before you file.

Section 28(3) lets you ask. Where a complaint has been made under clause (b), the court may, on demand by such person, direct the Appropriate Authority to make available copies of the relevant records in its possession. Ask for it on the record at the first opportunity.

Yes, in one situation. Section 20(3) lets the Appropriate Authority suspend a registration without any show cause notice where it is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest, provided it records its reasons in writing. The clinic then has thirty days under section 21 to appeal.

Section 23(4) says section 23(3) does not apply to a woman who was compelled to undergo the technique or selection. Section 24 requires the court to presume, unless the contrary is proved, that she was compelled by her husband or another relative, and makes that person liable for abetment under section 23(3).

Section 23(2) requires the Appropriate Authority to report the practitioner's name to the State Medical Council. On the framing of charges the Council may suspend registration until the case is disposed of, and on conviction the name is removed for five years for a first offence and permanently for a subsequent offence.

• The Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Prohibition of Sex Selection Act, 1994, as amended, full text on India Code: indiacode.gov.in
• Sections 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 28 of that Act, quoted above from the India Code text
• Right to Information Act, 2005: full text with the 14 November 2025 amendment

• The RTI Playbook, the full method from application to second appeal
• Beti Bachao Beti Padhao, funds and implementation gaps
• AI RTI Drafter to build the application above
• First Appeal Builder if the health office misses the thirty-day deadline
• RTI Act, 2005, full text

Reviewed by Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak. Last verified against the India Code text of the PCPNDT Act, 1994 on 30 August 2026.