Judicial Restraint in Public Health: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds TB Screening Protocol

In a significant ruling regarding the balance between national welfare policy and occupational safety, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore has underscored the limits of judicial intervention in administrative matters. Justice Jai Kumar Pillai dismissed the writ petition filed by the Pragatisheel Radiographers Sangh , which sought to quash guidelines governing the use of ultraportable handheld X-ray (HHXray) devices for community-based tuberculosis screening.

The Conflict: Efficiency vs. Safety The dispute originated from the government’s TB Mukt Bharat Abhiyan , a, national initiative aimed at eradicating tuberculosis by 2025. As part of this drive, the Central TB Division deployed Model Mine 2.1 ultraportable handheld X-ray devices to various districts in Madhya Pradesh.

The Pragatisheel Radiographers Sangh challenged these deployments, arguing that the operational guidelines for the devices were based solely on manufacturer claims, lacking independent scientific validation. The association raised serious concerns regarding the safety of radiographers, who were tasked with conducting 100 to 150 chest X-rays daily in non-shielded environments such as Panchayat Bhawans and schools, allegedly without proper TLD badges or full-body radiation protection.

Arguments from the Frontlines and the State The petitioners contended that requiring radiographers to work under these conditions violated the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004 , as well as their fundamental right to a safe working environment under Article 21 . Furthermore, they highlighted a stark economic disparity, noting that their radiation allowance of ₹50 per month had remained stagnant for 35 years, far below the ₹1,500 to ₹2,500 provided in other states.

Conversely, the Union and State respondents defended the policy as a vital administrative measure for public health. They argued that the screening targets were essential to the national mission and that no evidence suggested the policy was arbitrary or illegal, thereby making it unsuitable for judicial interference.

The Court’s Stance: A Boundary on Judicial Oversight The Court’s rationale emphasized the extraordinary nature of its jurisdiction under Article 226 . Justice Pillai observed that while the petition raised concerns, it failed to present actionable evidence of harm or statutory violation.

The Court distinguished between substantive legal grievances and subjective apprehensions:

"Regarding the petitioner's apprehensions concerning radiation hazards and lack of protective measures, this Court observes that there is no manifest material in the record that definitively establishes how this will affect the petitioners. The subjective apprehensions or informal experiments conducted by an association cannot substitute for formal administrative findings."

Key Observations

* On Policy Supremacy: "This Court has no occasion to interfere in the welfare policy meticulously developed by health experts and the executive under the National Health Mission."

* On Administrative Targets: "Such administrative mechanisms... are essential administrative tools to achieve the objectives of the TB Mukt Bharat Abhiyan and cannot be categorized as arbitrary merely because they impose demanding work schedules."

* On Judicial Responsibility: "In the absence of any statutory or service rule violation, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to interdict the administrative orders."

A Verdict for Administrative Autonomy By dismissing the petition, the Court has reinforced the principle that the judiciary must exercise profound restraint when reviewing health policies. The judgment establishes that in the absence of evidence of a clear violation of existing safety rules—such as those mandated by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board —the implementation of welfare schemes remains the exclusive preserve of administrative authorities.

For the government, this decision provides the legal clearance to continue its aggressive TB screening campaign, affirming that administrative tools, even when demanding, are protected from being labeled " arbitrary " in the context of national public health crises. For the radiographers union, the path forward will likely need to rely on administrative advocacy for better allowances and protection, rather than litigation aimed at stalling the mission itself.