Important Judgments which shaped MTP Act, POCSO Act, and PCPNDT Act: Adv. ROHIT ERANDE.©

 

Important Judgments which shaped MTP Act, POCSO Act, and PCPNDT Act:

By Adv. ROHIT ERANDE.

The Oby & Gyn. Specialists apart from keeping their medical knowledge updated and to use their skill, also routinely have to go through the legal frameworks when dealing with reproductive health, child protection, and prenatal diagnostics and the three critical laws governing Oby & Gyn medical practice in these areas are the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act, 1994.

 This article is an attempt to peruse in nutshell the important judgments that every doctor in India should be aware of.

I. Important Judgments related to the MTP Act.

The MTP Act, 1971 was passed to ensure the health and safety of women by reducing deaths from unsafe abortions, providing a legal framework for abortion under specific conditions, and protecting the reproductive rights of women and maximum period for MTP was 20 weeks. However slowly, after the opinions of the Medicos, this period was increased by Courts beyond 20 weeks, until a central amendment in the Act was made which permitted abortion upto 24 weeks.

We will the judgments from pre amendment area, that shows how the judiciary trend changed too.

1. Suchita Srivastava V/s. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1 =AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 235

 Facts : A Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by orders dated 9.6.2009 and 17.7.2009, ruled that it was in the best interests of a mentally retarded woman to undergo an abortion. This judgment was assailed by some of the activists on the ground that the high Court ignored the Expert Body's findings which showed that the victim had expressed her willingness to bear a child. As the case reached Hon’ble Apex Court, it was already 19 weeks.

• The Supreme Court accepted the Expert Body’s findings and ruled against the Termination ..

• The Supreme Court held that a woman’s right to make reproductive choices is a dimension of her personal liberty under Article 21.

• Consent of a woman—not guardians or the state—is crucial unless she is mentally incapable.

Relevance for Doctors: Respect patient autonomy; ensure informed consent.

2. X V/s. Union of India (2017) 3 SCC 458

Issue: Termination beyond 20 weeks for fetal abnormalities.

• The Court allowed the medical termination of a 24-week pregnancy due to severe fetal abnormalities (bilateral renal agenesis and anhydramnios).

• The court affirmed that a woman's right to reproductive choice is a component of her right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and recognized the importa

3. Sarmishtha Chakraborty V/s. Union of India (2018) 13 SCC 339

• SC allowed termination at 26 weeks due to severe fetal abnormalities (Down Syndrome + potential cardiac issues).

• In this Case Honb;e Apex court recognized the reproductive choice as an inseparable part of personal liberty protected under Article 21.

• Reinforced that continuation of pregnancy with severe anomalies causes mental trauma.

4. X v. The Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Dept. (2022) 10 SCC 1

This is indeed a landmark judgment related to MTP Act and POCSO Act.

• the Supreme Court of India held that unmarried women have the right to terminate pregnancies between 20 and 24 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Rules.

• The court found that excluding single women from the provisions of Rule 3B was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

• It affirmed the right to reproductive autonomy for all women, regardless of marital status, and rejected a narrow, patriarchal interpretation of the law

5 The Doctor saved from paying Rs. 2 Crore compensation. Thanks to 'timely' advise of USG /Anomaly Scans during pregnancy.

Baby Vani Bhattacharya, through her Father V/s. Dr. Suranjit Dutta, MS, New Delhi, CONSUMER CASE NO. 974 OF 2015

 Facts : The case is of pre MTP Amendment 2021

1. The present compliant has been filed by a minor baby through her Father against the Doctors alleging them responsible for the delivery of Hydrocephalus baby

2. It was alleged that the mother did inform the Gyneac. about her 2 daughters suffering from Autism. But Drs did not pay attention and it was held that the Dr. could have diagnosed the anomalies and delivery of Hydrocephalus baby could have been avoided.

Defense of Doctors : It was submitted that the Opposite Party No. 1 was a qualified Obstetrician and had experience of 27 years, conducted 8000 to 9000 deliveries including LSCS and other surgeries. It was submitted that though Dr. Dutta advised Triple test and USG at 16 weeks of pregnancy, it was denied by the mother. (documentation)

Held : a) It was also held that the patient did not follow the instructions of Dr. Dutta to visit every 15 days, undergo USG and Colour Doppler study. The head circumference (OFC) was measured by the Pediatrician Dr. Dinesh Kumar Goyal, it was 33.5 cm, normal.

b) The Opposite Party No.1 advised proper diagnostic tests during pregnancy to rule out anomaly. It was a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge. Therefore, he cannot be held guilty of negligence by any stretch of imagination.

6. "The consent to operate Uterus does not include Consent to remove it ".

A Doctor Couple was held negligent for removing uterus of a 25 years patient, without her consent.

Case Details : DR. RAVINDER VERMA & ANR. V/s. SALMA BEGAM, U.P., REVISION PETITION NO. 968 OF 2015, decided on 14 Feb 2017 –NCDRC.

II. Caesarian or Normal Delivery – Whose choice it is?

This topic cannot go untouched which and takes me to the important judgments on the day to day question that Oby and Gyn. practitioners come across and that is Cesarian or Normal Delivery , whose choice it is ?

a. It will not be out of context to mention the important judgment dated 11th March, 2015 of UK Supreme Court in the case of Montgomery (Appellant) V/s. Lanarkshire Health Board (Respondent) (Scotland), wherein it was held that : Also known as “shoulder dystocia judgment” !

Held :

• Giving birth in the 'NATURAL' way or giving birth by 'CAESAREAN SECTION' (unless she lacks the legal capacity to decide)" is the choice of a Pregnant woman !!!

• "Gone are the days when it was thought that, on becoming pregnant, a woman lost, not only her capacity, but also her right to act as a genuinely autonomous human being."

• Its wrong to say that vaginal delivery is in some way morally preferable to a caesarean section: so much so that it justifies depriving the pregnant woman of the information needed for her to make a free choice in the matter."

b. NO Negligence if LSCS preferred over complicated Normal Delivery ...

• A case claiming compensation Rs. 20 lakhs+ against Doctors got rejected.

• The National Commission in its judgment dated 17th July, 2017, rejected the Complaint of Rs.20,27,350/-

Case Details : KUNDAN LAL JAYASWAL & ANR V/s. DR. MALA PANDYA (THAKKAR) & ANR, Mumbai.

Facts :

1. As per USG report dated 16.3.2015, there was a double loop of cord encircling about 2/3rd circumference around the neck of fetus. Her expected date of delivery was 23.04.2015. However on 25.3.3015, as the water discharge from uterus increased, the patient approached the Doctors and after other investigations, the Doctors decided to go for LSCS in the interest of patient.

2. On the same day at 9.45 PM, a male baby was delivered by LSCS.

3. It was alleged that the Doctors intentionally performed LSCS and the bill was inflated.

Held :

The National Commission dismissed the appeal after perusing the record and hearing the parties and held that as the double loop of cord was present around the neck of fetus, the emergency LSCS was performed.

On the contrary, the Husband and the Relatives wanted to wait for the Normal Delivery !

c. Doctors cannot be always blamed, as some complications (like AFE in the present case) are unexpected, unavoidable and unpreventable. :

 The judgment of NCDRC beings with following observation :

" The blame of tragic misfortune for unexpected, unavoidable, unpredictable, unpreventable Amniotic Fluid Embolism ( AFE), most of the times the obstetrician is a scapegoat. Unfortunately in some cases, despite the doctor’s best intentions, patients suffer injury or die, and the clinicians involved often become the secondary victims."

 Case Details :

Dr. Manisha Agarwal, UP & anr V/s. Kapil Bajaj & anr.

First Appeal No.1107/2018, decided on 18th June, 2020.

III. Important Judgments on the POCSO Act (Implications for Doctors)

1. X V/s. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Civil Appeal No 5802 of 2022 : Disclosing identity of the victim, a devil and deep blue sea situation for Doctors.

In this landmark judgment as we have seen in MTP Act section, the Apex court ruled in favour of harmonious interpretation of MTP and POCSO Act and held :.

 a. Only on request of the minor and the guardian of the minor, need not disclose the identity and other personal details of the minor in the information provided under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act.

b. The RMP who has provided information under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act (in reference to a minor seeking medical termination of a pregnancy under the MTP Act) is also exempt from disclosing the minor’s identity in any criminal proceedings which may follow from the RMP’s report under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act.

Such an interpretation would prevent any conflict between the statutory obligation of the RMP to mandatorily report the offence under the POCSO Act and the rights of privacy and reproductive autonomy of the minor under Article 21 of the Constitution. It could not possibly be the legislature’s intent to deprive minors of safe abortions.

This Judgment has given relief to RMPs from the harassment if they do not disclose the identity of the minor.

2. “Mechanically Implicating Doctor U/S 21 POCSO Act For Not Reporting Crime Against Minor '” is Absolute Injustice', Causes Mental Trauma: Hon. Kerala HC

CRL.MC NO. 4728 OF 2021, Dr.T.Ambujakshi v State of Kerala.

Court added, “As a natural phenomenon when a patient meets a doctor, the doctor would act upon the age disclosed by her and no rowing enquiry in this regard is mandated by law…. Fastening criminal liability under Section 21 of the POCSO Act r/w Section 19(1) cannot be based on irrelevant materials and subsequent facts brought into, for which the accused has no nexus…There is no need to scrabble about the age rather than believing it for the purpose of proceeding further.”

3. Mere likelihood of suspicion was not sufficient but there must be grave suspicion that doctors knowingly failed to report about POCSO offence

Tessy Jose & Ors. v. State of Kerala : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 961 OF 2018, Before hon’ble supreme Court.

Facts : In this case, the victim was in advance stage of pregnancy. In fact, soon after she was brought to the hospital, she went into labour. She delivered the child and the Appellants are concerned, their role is that they attended to the victim.

In this case Two Senior Doctors and hospital Admin. Challenged the FIR wherein they were made the accused for not informing the alelegd POCSO case to Police. Appellant no. 1 was a 66 years’ Gynecologist and had conducted the delivery. Appellant no. 2 was a Pediatrician who had attended to the baby of the victim after the delivery. Appellant no. 3, was a 69 years’ old Hospital Administrative and she was roped-in that capacity though she did not even attend to the victim or the baby.

The Apex court observed that in the given circumstances when the victim, it was even the professional duty of Appellant No. 1 to attend to her and conduct the delivery, which she did. Likewise, after the baby was born, the Appellant No. 2 as a Paediatrician performed her professional duty.

It was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that : mere likelihood of suspicion was not sufficient but there must be grave suspicion that doctors knowingly failed to report about POCSO offence. . In that case, the Apex Court acquitted doctors who were accused of committing offence under Section 19 of the POCSO Act by stating that it was not their obligation to investigate and gather knowledge regarding the age of the victim.

IV. Important Judgments on the PCPNDT Act

The PCPNDT Act holds strict compliance requirements for all doctors performing ultrasound, genetic counseling, or prenatal tests. Courts have upheld a zero-tolerance policy.

1. The action (of seizure) without supporting reasons is lifeless, cannot sustain : The Action of Seizure of Hospital Struck Down by Hon. A.P. High Court. -

Case Details :

Raksha Hospital, Kurnool Dist. V/s. The State of A.P. & ors. (W.P. no. 27153/2025 , decided on 13/10/2025)

2. “Even without harassing Doctors, the aims and objects of PCPNDT Act can be achieved.”

"The Complaint was filed after 3 years of the alleged incident, speaks volumes "

Hon. Bombay High Court : CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 399 OF 2022 Chandrashekhar M. Gattani V/s. State of Maharashtra and anr.

3. Mere Pendency of a criminal case is not a ground to refuse the renewal of registration –

Case Details : CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9312 OF 2020. Hon. P&H High Court, at Chandigarh

Dr. Sanjiv Kaushal V/s. State of Haryana and others

 4. A Medical Geneticist as defined in the Act is exempted from any training under the 2014 Rules nor is required to qualify the competency based assessment,

A Doctor having experience of two years or more in the field Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques falls within the definition of “Medical Geneticist”

Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU, Case Details : WP(C) No.2199/2022

Dr. Kuldeep Chander Sharma V/s. Union of India.

5. "It's not an offense under the PCPNDT Act, if the computer generated reports like 'F Forms' are signed by the owner of the Hospital, instead of the concerned Sonologist/ Radiologist" -

 Also held :

"Rightful delegation of Power to AA was upheld"

Case Details : APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PCPNDT ACT, PIMPRI CHINCHWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION , Maharashtra V/s. DR. RAJENDER AMIRCHAND SUJANYAL & ORS, Criminal Appeal No.38/2022. – Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6. Sonography Machines cannot be sealed, if registration renewal is pending :

Hon. Bombay High Court. : Dr. Ramesh Bole V/s. State of Maharashtra (WRIT PETITION NO.4765 OF 2019),decided on 16/04/2019

The applicability of these judgments will always depend upon facts and evidences in each case. The Medicos should keep in mind the three ingredients of medical negligence are a duty of care owed by the medical professional to the patient, a breach of that duty (a failure to meet the standard of care), and damages suffered by the patient as a direct result of the breach. Only if these 3 ingredients are proved, a Doctor can be medically held negligent.

 Thanks and Regards

Adv. ROHIT ERANDE ©