Despite three decades of the PC&PNDT Act, sex selection persists, only moving into the digital space. Critically examine the adequacy of the legal–administrative framework.

The PC&PNDT Act, 1994 prohibits sex selection before and after conception and regulates diagnostic techniques [2]. The Sex Ratio at Birth (SRB, girls born per 1,000 boys) improved from 898 to 918 between 2014–16 and 2022–24 [1]. Yet MoHFW's 2026 workshop flagged misuse through portable devices and online platforms [1]. The framework is sound on paper but weak in enforcement.

Strengths of the framework

• Wide legal coverage: the 2003 amendment brought pre-conception selection and ultrasound machines within the Act [2].
• Stringent penalties: 3 years and/or ₹10,000 for a first offence, and 5 years and/or ₹50,000 for later offences. A convicted doctor is struck off the register for five years [2].
• Institutional architecture: a Central Supervisory Board, State Supervisory Boards, and Appropriate Authorities with civil-court powers of search and seizure [2].
• Adapting to digital misuse: the Section 22 ban on advertisements is now enforced online through the Sahyog Portal with I4C (MHA). Standardised State portals are also planned [1].
• Complementary scheme: Beti Bachao Beti Padhao works on attitudes. HMIS data show SRB rising from 918 to 929 (2014–15 to 2024–25) [3].

Inadequacies

• Weak deterrence: only 617 convictions from 3,158 cases, with 145 medical licences suspended or cancelled [4]. Penalties deter little when convictions are this rare.
• Gaps in the basic records: a Lok Sabha committee urged States to build online registration and record systems and to inspect more strictly and often [4]. Without a registry, an online advertiser cannot be checked against legal centres.
• Uneven State enforcement: health is a State subject. The CAG linked Telangana's low female birth rate to ineffective enforcement of the PC&PNDT and MTP Acts [5].
• Technology moves faster than regulation: portable devices and social media are hard to inspect. The rules must also balance ease of business for legitimate centres against oversight [1].
• Demand left largely untouched: the Act targets suppliers, while son preference continues.

In sum, the law is well designed, but slow trials, poor records and uneven State capacity blunt it. The way forward:

• complete digital registries;
• fast-track pending cases;
• use decoy operations, as the parliamentary committee recommended [4];
• keep up IEC campaigns.

Together these can turn Article 15's promise of non-discrimination into reality and advance SDG 5 on gender equality.