SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Bom) 1034

2011(6) All MR 370
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MOHIT S. SHAH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.P. SONDURBALDOTA
Radiological & Imaging Association (State Chapter- Jalna)
Versus
Union of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
WRIT PETITION NO. 797 OF 2011
Decided on : 26-08-2011

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Jignesh Thakker, Party in person.
For the Respondent:R1, Anurag Gokhale, R3, A.A. Kumbhakoni with Amit Borkar, Advocates, R2, V.D. Patil, Government Pleader.

Headnote:Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - Sections 4(1), 6, 17(4), 23, 29, 30 and 32-Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rule, 1996, Rules 9, 11 and 12-Maintenance of record-Circular issued by Government-Sonography clinics required to submit online form ’F’ and installation of Silent Observer (SIOB) on all Sonography machines-legality of-On line submission of form ’F’ reduces labour of appropriate authority-Information supplied in forms ’F’ can be easily cross checked with images stored in SIOB-Compliance of impugned circular fulfilled objects of Sections 4 and 17 of Act-Circular not suffers from any illegality.-The Parliament has taken notice of the socio-cultural mindset of the people as regards the circumstances in which they resort to female foeticide after ascertaining sex of the foetus. When the number of ’F’ forms being received by the appropriate authority in a district runs into a large number like 15,000 forms of pregnant woman undergoing ultra-sonography test in a single district in a month and more than 1,5,000 sonography tests on pregnant women in a single district in a year, the object of the Act requiring the ultra sound clinics to submit information in ’F’ form and giving the appropriate authority power to inspect the place, equipments and records for the purpose of investigating violations of the PC and PNDT Act and the Rules can be fulfilled if, and only if, the ’F’ forms are submitted online and such information can be cross-checked with the sonography slides in the silent observer.

       Hence the requirement of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act to maintain the complete record of ultra sonographyy on pregnant women and the mandate of Section 17(4) of the Act requiring the appropriate authority to take immediate action on investigation of complaints of breach of provisions of the Act and the Rules would include the power to require the ultrasound clinic to submit the on-line information in form ’F’ within 24 hours, and to keep the ultra sonography slides stored in the silent observer embedded on the ultrasound machine.

Judgment :

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner- Radiological & Imaging Association (State Chapter- Jalna) (hereafter referred to as "the petitioner" or "the Association") has challenged the circular dated 14 January 2011 of Collector and District Magistrate, Kolhapur (exhibit `F') requiring the Radiologists and Sonologists to submit on-line form F under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Rules, 2003. The Association has also challenged the circular dated 10 March 2010 (exhibit `A’) issued by the Collector in which reference is made to the workshop of doctors, sonologists and radiologists of Kolhapur held on 8 March 2010 and to the discussion at the said workshop for installation of SIOB (silent observer) for all the sonography machines, as a part of `save the baby’ campaign for improving sex ratio in the district.

2. The petitioner-association is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, formed for promoting, inter alia, the study and practice of Radio-diagnosis, ultrasound, CT, MRI and other imaging modalities. Members of the Association are medical practitioners who are imaging specialists engaged, inter alia, in foetal imaging, generally known as Sonologists/Radiologists and are governed by the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and Rules, 1996 (for brevity, PC&PNDT Act of 1994 and Rules, 1996).

3. According to the petitioner, ultra-sonography is a diagnostic technique which utilizes sound waves and reflections leading to imaging of diverse muscular or soft tissue organs/ parts of human body for detection of disorders, abnormalities or malfunctioning. It is a non-invasive technique which does not have any side effects or after effects and is, therefore, widely used in India and abroad for diagnostic examination of diverse organs and parts of the human body, including heart, liver, bladder, abdomen, kidneys, intestines, pancreas, prostate etc. Since it is non-invasive and has no radiation hazard, ultra-sonography has proved to be a boon in evaluating the foetus during pregnancy.

Primary challenge

4. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of Collector and District Magistrate, Kolhapur in issuing Circular dated 10 March 2010 whereby all doctors, sonologists and radiologists practicing in Kolhapur District are called upon to install device `Silent Observer’ in their sonography/ultra-sound machines. According to the petitioner, this machine and its software enables the Collector to directly review at district headquarters at Kolhapur to scan images of the patient which is illegal, against the provisions of the Act and invades privacy of the patients. It is contended that under the Rules, the ultra-sound clinics and other bodies governed by Act and the Rules are given time upto 5th day of the next month for submitting information in the format which is to be signed by the doctor and the patient. However, public notice dated 14 January 2011 (exhibit `F’) issued by the Collector and District Magistrate requiring the doctors/sonologists/radiologists to transmit form –F on-line within 24 hours is without authority of law.

Defence of Collector and District Magistrate

5. Collector and District Magistrate, Kolhapur has filed affidavit-in-reply dated 28 February 2011 submitting, interalia, as under:-

5.1 Vide notifications issued under Section 17 of the Act, the Collectors and District Magistrates as well as Civil Surgeons or Deans of Medical Colleges (where Civil surgeons are not available) at every district level, are appointed as appropriate authorities. Reference is made to the power conferred by the Act and the Rules on the appropriate authority for enforcement of the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

5.2 (a) The Collector and Civil Surgeon found that Kolhapur district is having the worst sex ratio 839 females per 1000 males. After understanding the magnit


































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top