Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.ROHINI AND RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, JJ.
INDIAN RADIOLOGICAL AND IMAGING ASSOCIATION (IRIA) - Appellant
Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR - Respondent
W.P.(C) 6968/2011, W.P.(C) 2721/2014 AND W.P.(C) 3184/2014
Decided on : 17-02-2016
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with appropriate references:
The primary purpose of the PNDT Act is to prevent the misuse of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for sex determination and female foeticide, not to regulate medical qualifications or training for ultrasound operation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Act's provisions are aimed at prohibiting sex determination and sex selection, regulating the use of ultrasound machines, and penalizing violations, rather than establishing or recognizing specific medical qualifications or training standards (!) (!) (!) .
The power to prescribe minimum qualifications under the Act is limited to those recognized by the medical council (MCI) and does not extend to creating or recognizing new qualifications or courses of training (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The definition of a "sonologist or imaging specialist" in the Act is broad and includes any person possessing recognized medical qualifications, such as MBBS, without requiring postgraduate specialization in radiology or ultrasonography, as the Act does not specify such qualifications (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The amendments introducing requirements like six months of training or competency tests for ultrasound operators are considered arbitrary and beyond the scope of the Act, which is primarily concerned with preventing sex determination misuse, not regulating medical education or training standards (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The requirement for ultrasound practitioners to undergo specific training or competency assessments is viewed as unnecessary, redundant, and inconsistent with the original legislative intent, which centers on preventing sex determination misuse, not on establishing detailed qualifications (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The inclusion of all places where ultrasound machines capable of sex determination are kept within the scope of the Act, including vehicles, is justified by the capability of such equipment to be used for sex determination, regardless of the actual use or purpose (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The legal authority under the Act does not extend to regulating or prescribing medical training curricula, nor does it empower authorities to recognize or create new qualifications for operating ultrasound machines; such matters are within the domain of the MCI (!) (!) (!) .
The Act and the Rules are intended to regulate the use of ultrasound machines for pre-natal purposes only, and their application to non-pre-natal diagnostic procedures is considered beyond the legislative scope, aiming to avoid unnecessary burdens on medical practitioners (!) (!) (!) .
The legislation's focus is on enforcement and regulation to prevent female foeticide, not on controlling the qualifications or training of all ultrasound operators, which are governed by other medical laws and authorities (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Any attempt to extend the Act's provisions to regulate medical education or create new qualifications for ultrasound operation exceeds the statutory authority and is therefore invalid (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The legislative intent and the provisions of the Act emphasize that ultrasound machines capable of sex determination are subject to regulation only insofar as they are used for prenatal diagnostic procedures, not for general diagnostic purposes (!) (!) .
The enforcement machinery should prioritize detecting violations related to sex determination and female foeticide, rather than engaging in extensive regulation of medical qualifications or training programs outside the scope of the Act (!) (!) (!) .
The legislation aims to strike a balance between preventing misuse of ultrasound for sex determination and not unduly burdening legitimate medical practice, which can be achieved through targeted regulation such as installation of monitoring devices rather than broad qualification mandates (!) (!) (!) .
These points collectively reflect the legal interpretation that the PNDT Act is primarily concerned with preventing sex determination misuse, and its provisions do not extend to regulating or recognizing specific medical qualifications or training curricula for ultrasound practitioners.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
W.P.(C) No.6968/2011.
1. The petitioner claims to be a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 established with the aim and objective inter alia to promote the study and practice of radio-diagnosis, ultrasound, CT, MRI and other imaging modalities and, having more than 8600 radiologists and imaging experts having recognised post-graduate degrees in the field of radio-diagnosis and imaging recognised by the Medical Council of India (MCI) as its members. The petition is filed contending:
(i) that to overcome the growing problem of sex-selective termination of pregnancy of female foetuses after determining sex of the foetus by using pre-natal sex determination techniques, the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sect Selection) Act, 1994 (PNDT Act) was enacted with the objective of prohibition of sex selection and for regulation of misuse of pre-natal diagnostic techniques and the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (PNDT Rules) framed thereunder for matters connected therewith;
(ii) that though the aim of the Act was to restrict the use of ultrasound machine by allowing use thereof only by qualified individuals, who could be monitored, the same has had the opposite effect of enlarging the category of persons authorised to use and operate ultrasound machines;
(iii) that the PNDT Act, owing to its lackadaisical and ineffective implementation, has failed to serve the purpose and the child sex ratio continues to fall;
(iv) that this lead to the filing of W.P.(C) No.301/2000 titled Centre for Enquiry Into Health and Allied Themes (CEHAT) Vs. Union of India in the Supreme Court of India and vide order dated 4th May, 2001 wherein, directions were issued (i) to the Central Government to create public awareness against the practice of pre-natal determination of sex and female foeticide through appropriate releases / programmes in the electronic media; (ii) to implement with all vigour and zeal the PNDT Act and PNDT Rules and to strictly adhere to the rule as to the periodicity of meetings of the Advisory Committees constituted under Section 17(5) of the PNDT Act; (iii) to the Central Supervisory Board constituted under the Act to review and monitor the implementation of the Act and to seek quarterly returns from the States / Union Territories and to make recommendations as may be required as per the exigencies of the situation; and, (iv) to the Appropriate Authorities under the Act to take prompt action with respect to violators of the Act;
(v) that the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court also did not serve the purpose, as was lamented by the Supreme Court in the subsequent order dated 10th September, 2003 in the aforesaid petition;
(vi) that the aforesaid resulted in amendment to the Act and the Rules being mooted and certain amendments were carried out to the Act with effect from 14th February, 2003;
(vii) that Section 2(p) of the amended PNDT Act defines a “sonologist or imaging specialist” as:
(p) sonologist or imaging specialist” means a person who possesses any one of the medical qualifications recognised under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) or who possesses a post-graduate qualification in ultrasonography or imaging techniques or radiology.
but there is no post-graduate qualification, neither in the field of ultrasonography nor in the field of imaging techniques which is recognised by the respondent No.2 MCI;
(viii) that similarly the amended Rule 3(3)(1) of the PNDT Rules entitles the following persons to set up a genetic clinic / ultrasound clinic / imaging centre
3.3.(1) Any person having adequate space and being or employing—
(a) Gynaecologist having experience of performing at least 20 procedures in chorionic villi aspirations per vagina or per abdomen, chorionic villi biopsy, amniocentesis, cordocentesis photocopy, foetal skin or organ biopsy or foetal blood sampling etc. u
gpt-4
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
