'Attempt To Cover-up Poor Prosecution': Supreme Court Criticises States For Not Challenging Acquittals In PC-PNDT Cases

The Supreme Court today questioned as to why States are not filing appeals against acquittals of offenders in Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act cases.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan was hearing a PIL where direction has been sought for strict compliance with Rule 18A(5)(vi) of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1966. This rule mandates immediate action for filing appeal, revision or other proceedings in higher courts in case of order of acquittal within a period of 30 days but not later than 15 days of receipt of the order.

The last effective order in the matter was passed in September 2024 when the Court called for the States' response along with data from January 1, 2015 onwards indicating the number of cases of acquittal where "appeal, revision or other proceedings" were filed by the authorities.

Today, Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh informed the Court that pursuant to the September order, 5 states have not filed their response. Based on the affidavits that were filed by some states, the senior counsel submitted that in sum and substance, it has been claimed that the subject provision is directory in nature, not mandatory. "There are umpteen number of acquittals but the appeals, etc...this is the only way in which the Act can be enforced...this is the central provision", urged Parikh.

"Why are they not filing the appeals against acquittals" asked Justice Nagarathna. Parikh replied that no reason has been given even though there have been some very shocking cases.

Hearing him, Justice Nagarathna commented that the acquittals are a result of poor prosecution and the authorities try to cover up by not filing appeals. Ultimately, the Court granted 4 weeks' time to the non-compliant states to file their response. "We are not imposing cost, but next time we may impose cost", Justice Nagarathna warned.

The bench also appointed Parikh as an Amicus Curiae to assist in the case.

The PIL was filed by Advocate Shobha Gupta (and another), claiming that some states were not filling appeals as per the subject Rule. Citing data, it sought directions to the appropriate authorities for initiation of punishment/penalty under Section 25 of the PNDT Act against the offenders who contravene Rule 18A(5)(vi).

The 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, and Bihar were impleaded as respondents.

The Union of India has taken a stand that it is bound to take steps if there is non-compliance of Rule 18-A(5)(vi) but the implementation remains with the States.

Case Title: SHOBHA GUPTA AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 301/2022