Introduction:

In a significant directive aimed at enforcing the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 (PNDT Act), the Punjab & Haryana High Court has ordered the Punjab Government to adhere to the Act in “its letter and spirit.” This decision arose after an incident where a team of doctors was allegedly obstructed from inspecting a hospital under the PNDT Act’s provisions, and the police failed to register a First Information Report (FIR) against the accused.

The case, titled National Anti Crime and Human Rights Protection of India v. State of Punjab and others, was presided over by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal. The bench emphasized the mandatory nature of FIR registration for cognizable offences, referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P..

Arguments:

Ms. Molly A. Lakhanpal, representing the petitioner, National Anti Crime and Human Rights Protection of India, presented the following points:

• Violation of PNDT Act: In 2017, a team of doctors attempted to inspect a hospital in Punjab but were prevented from doing so. The hospital’s staff did not allow the team to enter the premises, access relevant documents, or examine the machines installed.
• Obstruction and Illegal Detention: The doctors were physically restrained and prevented from performing their official duties, a clear violation of Sections 341 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertain to wrongful restraint and assault or criminal force to deter public servants from discharging their duties.
• Non-Operational Lift: The hospital staff cited a non-operational lift as the reason the doctors could not access the first floor, further obstructing the inspection.
• Lack of FIR Registration: Despite the prima facie evidence of cognizable offences, the police did not register an FIR based on the doctors’ complaint dated November 28, 2017.
• Respondent’s Arguments: Mr. Saurav Khurana, Additional Advocate General for Punjab, countered the petitioner’s claims with the following arguments:
• Action Taken: The State Government had already lodged three FIRs against the hospital under the PNDT Act and IPC provisions based on other complaints.
• Investigation Closure: Regarding the specific complaint about wrongful restrainment of the doctors, the matter was closed without registering an FIR, possibly due to a lack of sufficient evidence.
• Premises Sealed: The hospital in question has since been sealed, indicating that the authorities took necessary action against the alleged violations.

Court’s Judgment:

The bench, after thorough consideration, delivered a detailed judgment focusing on the importance of enforcing the PNDT Act and the mandatory nature of FIR registration for cognizable offences.

Key Points of the Judgment:

• Mandatory FIR Registration: Citing the Constitution Bench judgment in Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P., the court reiterated that once a complaint reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, registering an FIR is mandatory. Exceptions only apply in complicated cases requiring preliminary inquiry.
• Non-Compliance by Police: In this case, the court found no justification for the police’s failure to register an FIR, as the offences were neither special nor involved complicated questions of fact or moral turpitude.
• Directive to the State: The State of Punjab was directed to ensure that complaints reflecting cognizable offences are met with FIR registration in accordance with Lalita Kumari guidelines.
• PNDT Act Enforcement: The court underscored the need for strict compliance with the PNDT Act to prevent illegal sex determination and related practices.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s directive to the Punjab Government underscores the critical importance of adhering to legal protocols in handling violations of the PNDT Act. By emphasizing the mandatory nature of FIR registration for cognizable offences, the court aims to reinforce accountability and ensure the Act’s robust implementation. The judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law and protecting public health and rights.