The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that the act of compelling and conducting illegal abortions in unsanitary facilities directly infringes upon the fundamental right to bodily autonomy protected by Article 21 of the Constitution.

The bench headed by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar emphasized that courts in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh must avoid overly technical interpretations when applying the Preconception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PNDT) Act.

Justice Brar further highlighted that courts should prioritize understanding the legislative intent behind the Act, recognizing its societal importance. A narrow interpretation would undermine the fundamental purpose for which the Act was enacted.

In his ruling, Justice Brar pointed out that the preference for male children was clearly reflected in the imbalanced sex ratio. This preference stemmed from cultural and social prejudices, perpetuating not just misogyny but also endangering the health of expecting mothers. Selective termination of pregnancies raised significant ethical concerns and intensified gender inequality, contributing to an unsafe environment that hindered the pursuit of gender justice.

During the hearing, Justice Brar presided over a petition requesting the dismissal of an FIR filed under the Act. The argument presented highlighted that courts could only acknowledge an offense under the Act if it was brought forth by the appropriate authority or an officer authorized by the Central or state government.

Justice Brar emphasized that the pivotal issue facing the court was whether the police possessed the authority to file an FIR and conduct an investigation regarding an offense under the PNDT Act. Highlighting the nature of the offenses outlined in the Act as cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable, he underscored that in cognizable offenses, the police held the right to make arrests without a warrant and initiate investigations without requiring permission from the court.

Rule 18-A of the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, specified that the police's investigative authority was not entirely restricted. The phrase 'as far as possible' within Rule 18-A (3) suggested that the appropriate authority could seek support and cooperation from the police when necessary.