Why India's Sex Selection Law Needs a Rethink

Image Source: Getty Images

India’s law against sex selection belongs to a specific technological and social moment. Amniocentesis, a prenatal diagnostic procedure that examines amniotic fluid for foetal abnormalities, entered Indian medicine in the 1970s, followed by the wider spread of ultrasonography (USG) in the 1980s and 1990s. These technologies arrived in a deeply entrenched patriarchal society where sons carried lineage, property, ritual duties, and old-age security, while daughters were often treated as economic burdens. Prenatal diagnosis thus gave an old hierarchy a new instrument. The result was part of what demographers came to call the “missing women” phenomenon, first identified by economist Amartya Sen. By the 1990s and early 2000s, estimates placed sex-selective abortions in India at roughly 480,000 female foetuses each year.

The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, or PC&PNDT Act of 1994, emerged from that history. Its moral purpose remains clear. India’s commitments under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the 2013 Commonwealth Charter require the state to confront practices that deny girls equal worth before birth. Three decades later, the medical terrain has changed. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) now brings USG to the bedside in emergency medicine, anaesthesia, critical care, trauma, vascular access, and rural diagnosis. Indian regulation still approaches ultrasound through the anxieties of foetal sex disclosure, even as clinical literature argues that the framework has restricted access to diagnostic USG and placed a heavier burden on poor and rural patients.

The Act’s success in curbing sex selection remains difficult to isolate from broader socio-economic shifts, while its enforcement mechanisms have at times treated clerical errors as serious violations, fostering a climate of fear and defensive medicine.

A law created to prevent the misuse of prenatal diagnosis now deserves review because its administrative design may be narrowing the legitimate future of ultrasound in Indian healthcare. Furthermore, the Act’s success in curbing sex selection remains difficult to isolate from broader socio-economic shifts, while its enforcement mechanisms have at times treated clerical errors as serious violations, fostering a climate of fear and defensive medicine. However, a critique of the regulatory framework surrounding ultrasound technology is not, and should not be framed as, an argument for restricting safe abortion access or compromising women's reproductive autonomy, which remains a cornerstone of public health.

Sex Ratios and the Limits of Enforcement Data

The PC&PNDT Act is often discussed as though subsequent improvements in sex ratio at birth (SRB) can be read as evidence of statutory success, but the demographic literature suggests caution. The 'pioneer' theory of sex ratio transition describes how wealthier and better-educated groups may be the first to adopt sex-selective technologies, as they have earlier access to private diagnostic services. With further social and economic change, these same groups may also begin to shift earlier towards a weaker preference for sons. The experience of north-western India, including Sikh communities in Punjab and Haryana, fits this more complex pattern. A Pew Research Center analysis of National Family Health Survey data notes that Sikhs had among the widest sex-ratio gaps in the early 2000s, followed by one of the sharpest corrections in later years. Early access to USG, landholding patrilineal norms, and low fertility were associated with severe distortion. Later improvements occurred alongside education, urbanisation, changing aspirations, and a reduced stated preference for sons.

Table 1 presents India-level Quarterly Progress Report (QPR) indicators on PC&PNDT implementation. The underlying QPR portal could not be accessed during compilation, so the table has been reconstructed from Parliamentary answers, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) annual reports, and publicly available Press Information Bureau (PIB) releases. The rapid growth in registered diagnostic bodies, from 49,544 in March 2014 to 98,595 by June 2025, shows how far the regulatory net around ultrasound has expanded. Yet the enforcement of the PC&PNDT Act is often measured through process indicators such as registration, inspection, machine sealing, and cases filed rather than evidence of sex determination prevented. The inconsistency in the machine-seizure series reinforces this problem. Machines sealed or seized rose from 3,238 in June 2022 to 4,853 in June 2023, before falling to 3,541 in June 2024. If these are cumulative figures, the fall should be explained. If they reflect currently sealed machines, released machines, revised reporting or definitional changes, the category should say so. Without that clarity, the data cannot tell us whether the Act is detecting illegal sex selection or penalising procedural non-compliance. Highlighting this disconnect, a recent article by a former health secretary cited a 2020 analysis revealing that 68 percent of violations were purely procedural. The former secretary argued that sealing machines and pursuing criminal prosecution over minor clerical errors reflects a failure of implementation rather than legislative intent. A 2024 NATHEALTH report also emphasised this figure, noting that current regulatory complexities and prolonged approval processes create widespread apprehension among genuine practitioners.

Table 1: India-level PC&PNDT implementation indicators from available sources

Source: Compiled by Author from Multiple Sources

The low cumulative count of medical licences suspended or cancelled also deserves attention. Recently available QPR figures place it around 145, despite a regulatory universe approaching over three decades. This gap suggests that much of the implementation record could be centred on facility registration, paperwork, inspections and machine control. The human consequences of the law also require evaluation beyond SRB. Studies on sex selection bans indicate that when son preference persists, discrimination can move into postnatal investments. Families with firstborn daughters may continue childbearing until a son is born, thus increasing the family size and diluting resources. Research has associated exposure to the ban with reduced antenatal care, lower vaccination and breastfeeding, higher child mortality among firstborn female families, and later educational disadvantage for girls.

Studies on sex selection bans indicate that when son preference persists, discrimination can move into postnatal investments. Families with firstborn daughters may continue childbearing until a son is born, thus increasing the family size and diluting resources.

The Technological Stranglehold

The PC&PNDT Act has had an unintended constraining effect on the spread of USG beyond obstetrics. In 1994, the ultrasound machine was largely a cart-based, expensive device used for obstetric and abdominal imaging. That world has changed. Today, USG is a portable and versatile modality. In emergency medicine, POCUS is used for the Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) to detect internal bleeding. In anaesthesiology and pain medicine, USG has replaced blind anatomical landmarks for guiding peripheral nerve blocks and vascular access.

The Act’s regulatory architecture fails to distinguish adequately between obstetric imaging and life-saving non-obstetric POCUS. It assumes that the primary risk lies in the physical mobility of the machine. Handheld and portable USG devices, including those connected to smartphones or tablets, are therefore subjected to stringent restrictions. Movement outside registered premises is generally prohibited. Specialists whose work has no connection with pregnancy must still pass through a registration regime designed for foetal sex determination. Import and licensing requirements for ultrasound scanners add further delay. Fear of machine seizure and excessive documentation may deter hospitals from procuring these devices.

The Act’s regulatory architecture fails to distinguish adequately between obstetric imaging and life-saving non-obstetric POCUS. It assumes that the primary risk lies in the physical mobility of the machine. Handheld and portable USG devices, including those connected to smartphones or tablets, are therefore subjected to stringent restrictions.

The restriction has deeper consequences for rural healthcare. Where computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) modalities are scarce or unaffordable, diagnostic USG can be the only realistic radiation-free imaging option. The framework imposes the collateral cost of preventing sex selection on the poorest patients. New technology will intensify this tension. Three-dimensional (3D), four-dimensional (4D), and artificial intelligence (AI)-enhanced 8K imaging can improve anomaly detection but may complicate compliance when sex-related information becomes easier to infer. For example, 8K ultrasound can turn routine foetal imaging into a highly detailed anatomical rendering; however, during a standard measurement, even a slight movement of the probe near the pelvis may make foetal sex visible on screen, forcing radiologists to monitor not only what they see but also what is saved or printed.

Indian Diaspora and International Lessons

Perhaps the most potent evidence that administrative regulation cannot defeat entrenched cultural bias comes from demographic data regarding the Indian diaspora living in Western healthcare systems. In the United Kingdom, where sex-selective abortion is strictly illegal, an official government report examining 3.6 million live births between 2017 and 2021 found a statistically significant imbalance exclusively among children of Indian ethnicity at third or later birth orders. The ratio was 113 boys per 100 girls, prompting official demographic estimates that hundreds of female births were “missing” from the observed distribution.

Similarly, a peer-reviewed 2025 study analysing over two million births in Western Australia and New South Wales found heavily male-biased ratios among Indian-born and Chinese-born mothers. For Indian-born mothers, third births following two girls resulted in a ratio of 131 boys per 100 girls (SRB 1.31). This suggests that regulation alone is unlikely to eliminate the practice where son preference remains strong, and it may instead shift the route through which sex selection is pursued. Banning the technology locally merely drives the practice underground, overseas, or into parallel technological avenues (such as blood-based non-invasive prenatal testing/NIPT), reinforcing the argument that long-term solutions depend on sustained shifts in social norms.

Asian comparisons add another lesson. China and Vietnam prohibit non-medical foetal sex identification and sex selection; their models focus more directly on the prohibited act than on the continuous supervision of every legal ultrasound machine. South Korea offers a different history. After decades of son preference and skewed birth ratios, social change has helped to normalise the sex ratio at birth. In 2024, its Constitutional Court struck down the remaining ban on foetal sex disclosure before 32 weeks, declaring it unconstitutional. The lesson is not that India should emulate any one model. Perhaps laws on sex selection should be revisited from time to time as social norms and technologies change.

Reform Architecture

The reform India needs is not a retreat from the ban on sex selection. It is a redesign of the machinery through which that ban is enforced. The first step should be a national evaluation of the PC&PNDT Act. India needs to understand how much of the change in SRB can be attributed to the law and how much reflects fertility decline, education, urbanisation, and changing son preference. QPR indicators should be rebuilt into a public dashboard that separates cases filed, convictions, acquittals, appeals, offence type, machines ever seized, machines currently sealed, machines released, registration suspensions and trial duration.

Portable and handheld POCUS devices should be regulated through training standards, device registration, digital logs, and random inspections, rather than rules that treat mobility as the risk.

The second reform should separate obstetric from non-obstetric ultrasound. Facilities using USG exclusively for emergency medicine, anaesthesia, critical care, pain medicine, orthopaedics, vascular access, and rural diagnosis should have a lighter, faster pathway. Portable and handheld POCUS devices should be regulated through training standards, device registration, digital logs, and random inspections, rather than rules that treat mobility as the risk.

The third reform lies in technology. India should move from paper-heavy compliance to auditable systems. Encrypted image logs, machine-use records, geotagged scans and tamper-resistant storage would give regulators a better basis for detecting misuse than clerical documents alone.

The stabilisation of India's SRB owes as much to rising socio-economic factors as it does to the punitive measures of the PC&PNDT Act. Continuing to police the ultrasound machine as a blunt proxy for policing human behaviour ignores the realities of modern medicine. By evolving the law from a rigid, machine-centric dragnet into a risk-stratified regulatory structure, India can maintain its vital guardrails because stopping the misuse of ultrasound should not ultimately prevent a nation from using ultrasound well.

K. S. Uplabdh Gopal is an Associate Fellow with the Health Initiative at the Observer Research Foundation.

The author acknowledges the use of QuillBot v7.1.0 for language refinement and editorial assistance. The author reviewed and approved all analyses, arguments, fact-checking, and final content.

• Healthcare
• India
• Gender discrimination
• PC&PNDT Act
• Prenatal diagnosis
• Public health policy
• Sex ratio at birth
• Sex selection
• Sex-selective abortion
• Son preference
• Ultrasound regulation
• Women's reproductive autonomy

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.

PREV NEXT