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

2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 26837

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
SHAJI J KODANKANDATH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/37215/2018



Advocates:
K.B.GANGESH, SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH, SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON, SRI.AMAL S. KUMAR, SRI. S.RANJITH, SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN

The court established that regulatory authority must be exercised within the framework of existing law, acknowledging the responsibilities assigned by the Atomic Energy Act and associated rules.

Headnote:

Regulation - Public Health - Atomic Energy Act 1962, Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules 2004 - The court examined the enforcing authority’s responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act and its implications for radiation safety, ultimately affirming the need for regulatory oversight in medical diagnostic facilities.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation challenging the lack of regulatory inspections by the Directorate of Radiation Safety after the expiration of a Memorandum of Understanding with the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, leading to unregulated X-ray units operating in Kerala.

Finding of the Court:

The court recognized the regulatory failures leading to public health risks due to unlicensed X-ray facilities, but noted that the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board was still conducting some inspections, thereby dismissing the petitions for direct oversight mechanisms.

Issues: Whether the Directorate of Radiation Safety should resume regulatory inspections for X-ray units post-MoU expiration and if the existing framework suffices for compliance with radiation safety regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that despite the Directorate of Radiation Safety's inactivity, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board was still fulfilling its inspection duties under existing laws, reducing the need for additional writs.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, affirming existing regulatory measures.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of December, 2021

S.Manikumar, C.J.

Instant public interest litigation is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to conduct proper verification and site inspection before providing registrations to new X ray units and to inspect the existing units periodically so as to ensure that all the units are functioning in compliance with Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules 2004 and the regulations prescribed by the 4th respondent in this regard.

ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to make provisions to conduct inspections on all institutions which has X ray or any other radiation sourced equipments on a quarterly basis.

iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to establish a state level authority to function as an enforcing authority for the 4th respondent or in the alternative to direct respondents 1, 2 and 4 to renew Ext. P2 Memorandum of Understanding so as to re-enable the 3rd respondent to carry out its functions efÏciently.”

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as hereunder:

Being aggrieved by the non-functioning of the Directorate of Radiation (DRS), 3rd respondent herein, the petitioner has approached this court. DRS being the enforcing authority of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), authorized to carry out pre-installation and regulatory inspection of medical diagnostic facilities in Kerala using radiation sourced equipments. DRS was constituted in Kerala as per an MoU signed between AERB and the State Government of Kerala. On 31.12.2016, the validity of the MoU has expired and since then DRS has become non-functional.

Registration and licensing of new medical diagnostic facilities is being provided by AERB directly through an online platform named "e-LORA", without conducting any pre- installation site inspection and verification of the diagnostic radiation sourced equipments. In the absence of a proper regulatory authority, several diagnostic units using radiation sourced equipments are mushrooming in various parts of the State, in violation of the provisions envisaged in Rule 30 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004.

3. On behalf of the Directorate of Radiation Safety (respondent No.3), a statement dated 14.03.2019 has been filed. Relevant paragraphs of the same read thus:

“3. It is true that there should be some mechanism to check and monitor the functioning of all medical diagnostic X-ray facilities in Private and Government Sector within the State of Kerala. The Directorate of Radiation Safety was the body authorised for the same and was effectively functioning upto 31.12.2016. Thereafter, the authorization for acting on behalf of AERB was not renewed from 01.01.2017 and on the direction from AERB to stop all regulatory inspections till signing of the new MoU, the Government of Kerala directed the Directorate to stop all regulatory inspections and now there is no periodical inspection either by the Directorate of Radiation Safety or by the AERB in the state of Kerala.

4. As per the various provisions of the Atomic Energy Act , 1962, the responsibility to ensure the radiation safety is vested with the 4th respondent Atomic Energy Regulation Board. The Radiation Protection Rules, 2004 is also framed under the , 1962 for the purpose of monitoring all stages of licensing X-ray installations like siting, installation, services, commissioning and de- commissioning.

5. The increased use of Medical Diagnostic X Ray can increase the cancer risk, mutation in the exposed population and genetic disorders in the off springs. Even small radiation dose to an individual carry some risk. Foetal irradiation can cause mental retardation. Hence it is necessary to keep the radiation as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) which is t

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