Supreme Court Stays Delhi High Court Order on Pre-Natal Diagnostic Training Rules: Union of India vs. Indian Radiological and Imaging Association (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 March 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 214

Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar J, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J

Can a High Court’s judgment undermine the implementation of a law aimed at preventing female foeticide? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent order, staying a Delhi High Court judgment that had struck down a mandatory training rule for medical professionals conducting pre-natal diagnostic procedures. This order highlights the ongoing battle against sex-selective abortions and the importance of stringent enforcement of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act).

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, issued this order to ensure the effective implementation of the PCPNDT Act. The Court emphasized the need for mandatory training for medical professionals to prevent the misuse of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for sex determination, thereby upholding the spirit of the Act.

Case Background

The case arose from a conflict between the Supreme Court’s directions in Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of India (2016) and a subsequent judgment by the Delhi High Court in a batch of cases including Indian Radiological and Imaging Association v. Union of India (2016). The Supreme Court, in its 2016 judgment, had issued comprehensive directions for the effective implementation of the PCPNDT Act, including the enforcement of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) (Six Months Training) Rules, 2014.

The Delhi High Court, however, had struck down Rule 3(3)(1)(b) of the PCPNDT Rules, 1996, and Rule 6 of the Six Months Training Rules, 2014, which mandated a six-month training for sonologists and imaging specialists. The High Court held that there was no provision in the PCPNDT Act empowering any body to prescribe such qualifications or training. This decision effectively undermined the Supreme Court’s directions and the intent of the PCPNDT Act.

The Union of India, therefore, sought an interim stay on the Delhi High Court’s judgment, arguing that it hampered the enforcement of the PCPNDT Act and the prevention of sex-selective abortions.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court, in its judgment in Voluntary Health Association of Punjab, had directed all states and union territories to implement the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) (Six Months Training) Rules, 2014. This was to ensure that medical professionals involved in pre-natal diagnostic procedures are adequately trained to prevent the misuse of these techniques for sex determination.

However, the Delhi High Court, in its judgment dated 17 February 2016, held that there was no provision in the PCPNDT Act empowering any of the bodies constituted under the law or even the Central government to prescribe qualifications for practicing medicine with the aid of an ultrasound imaging equipment or to prescribe the nature and content of the curriculum or duration of the qualification. The High Court’s decision effectively nullified the mandatory training rules, which were considered crucial for the effective implementation of the PCPNDT Act.

The Union of India then approached the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the Delhi High Court’s judgment, arguing that it was impeding the implementation of the PCPNDT Act and the prevention of female foeticide.

Legal Framework

The Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) was enacted to prohibit sex selection and regulate pre-natal diagnostic techniques to prevent their misuse for sex determination.

Key provisions of the Act include:

• Section 2(c): Defines “Genetic Counselling Centre” as an institute providing genetic counseling to patients.
• Section 2(d): Defines “Genetic Clinic” as a place used for conducting pre-natal diagnostic procedures.
• Section 2(e): Defines “Genetic Laboratory” as a place where facilities are provided for conducting analysis or tests of samples received from Genetic Clinic for pre-natal diagnostic test.
• Section 2(i): Defines “pre-natal diagnostic procedures” as gynaecological or obstetrical or medical procedures such as ultrasonography, foetoscopy, taking or removing samples of amniotic fluid, chorionic villi, blood or any tissue of a pregnant woman for being sent to a Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic for conducting pre-natal diagnostic test.
• Section 2(p): Defines “sonologist or imaging specialist” as a person who possesses any one of the medical qualifications recognised under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or who possesses a post-graduate qualification in ultrasonography or imaging techniques or radiology.
• Section 3: Regulates Genetic Counselling Centres, Genetic Laboratories, and Genetic Clinics, requiring registration and adherence to prescribed qualifications for employees. “no Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic shall employ or cause to be employed any person who does not possess the prescribed qualifications”.
• Section 4: Regulates pre-natal diagnostic techniques, specifying the conditions under which they can be used and prohibiting their use for sex selection.
• Section 32(1): Empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act.
• Section 32(2)(i): States that the rules may provide for the minimum qualifications for persons employed at a registered Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic under clause (1) of section 3.

The Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) (Six Months Training) Rules, 2014, were framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 32 of the PCPNDT Act. Rule 6 of these rules provides for the eligibility for training and an exemption to existing registered medical practitioners subject to qualifying in the competency based assessment.

Arguments

The Union of India argued that the six-month training rule was essential for the effective implementation of the PCPNDT Act. They contended that the training was necessary to sensitize medical professionals to the objectives of the Act and to prevent the misuse of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for sex determination. The Union of India emphasized that the rule-making power conferred upon the Central Government under Section 32 of the PCPNDT Act included the power to prescribe qualifications and training for persons employed in genetic counselling centers, laboratories, and clinics.

The Delhi High Court, on the other hand, held that the PCPNDT Act did not empower any of the bodies constituted under the law or even the Central government to prescribe qualifications for practicing medicine with the aid of an ultrasound imaging equipment or to prescribe the nature and content of the curriculum or duration of the qualification. The High Court also found that Section 2(p) of the PCPNDT Act, defining a Sonologist or Imaging Specialist, was bad to the extent it included persons possessing a postgraduate qualification in ultrasonography or imaging techniques – because there is no such qualification recognized by MCI and the PNDT Act does not empower the statutory bodies constituted thereunder or the Central Government to devise and coin new qualification.

The High Court also stated that all places including vehicles where ultrasound machine or imaging machine or scanner or other equipment capable of determining sex of the foetus or has the potential of detection of sex during pregnancy or selection of sex before conception, require registration under the Act. However, if the person seeking registration makes a declaration that the machine is not intended for conducting pre-natal diagnostic procedures and gives an undertaking to not use the same for pre-natal diagnostic procedures, then they would be exempt from complying with the provisions of the Act and the Rules with respect to Genetic Clinics, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Counselling Centres.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this order, but the core issues that the court addressed were:

1. Whether the Delhi High Court was correct in holding that the PCPNDT Act does not empower the Central Government to prescribe qualifications and training for sonologists and imaging specialists.
2. Whether the six-month training rule is essential for the effective implementation of the PCPNDT Act.
3. Whether the judgment of the Delhi High Court impinges upon the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Voluntary Health Association of Punjab.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, in its order, stayed the operation of the Delhi High Court’s judgment dated 17 February 2016. The Court held that the judgment of the Delhi High Court impinged upon the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Voluntary Health Association of Punjab.

The Court emphasized that the Central Government has the power to prescribe minimum qualifications for persons employed at genetic centers, laboratories, and clinics under Section 32 of the PCPNDT Act, which necessarily includes the power to prescribe training. The Court further stated that the training is essential to sensitize medical professionals to the objectives of the Act and to prevent the misuse of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for sex determination.

The Court directed that the judgment in Voluntary Health Association of Punjab shall be strictly enforced by all states and union territories, untrammeled by any order of any High Court or any other court.

Authorities:

✓ Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of India: The Supreme Court emphasized that the directions issued in this case must be strictly enforced.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to uphold the legislative policy behind the PCPNDT Act, which aims to curb female foeticide. The Court emphasized the importance of the six-month training rule in sensitizing medical professionals to the objectives of the Act and preventing the misuse of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for sex determination. The Court also recognized that the Delhi High Court’s judgment had the potential to undermine the Supreme Court’s earlier directions in Voluntary Health Association of Punjab, which were aimed at ensuring the effective implementation of the Act.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal interpretation of the PCPNDT Act and its provisions, particularly Section 32, which confers rule-making power upon the Central Government. The Court also relied on its earlier judgment in Voluntary Health Association of Punjab, which had emphasized the need for strict enforcement of the PCPNDT Act.

The Court did not explicitly discuss alternative interpretations, but its reasoning suggests that it rejected the Delhi High Court’s narrow interpretation of the rule-making power under the PCPNDT Act. The Court’s decision was driven by the need to ensure that the PCPNDT Act is effectively implemented and that the social evil of female foeticide is curbed.

The Supreme Court held that the judgment of the Delhi High Court needed to be stayed during the pendency of the proceedings. The Court also held that the judgment of the Delhi High Court impinged upon the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Voluntary Health Association of Punjab.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The comprehensive directions issued by this Court in its decision in Voluntary Health Association of Punjab (Supra) must be read as integral to the enforcement of a law which has been enacted by Parliament to curb a grave social evil and to render the statutory provisions truly effective to curb the mischief which was sought to be addressed by enacting the law.”

“Even on a plain and natural construction of the words used by Parliament, specification of qualifications must necessarily comprehend the power to prescribe training. The rationale for this is that the training would sensitize the person concerned to the salutary object and purpose of the legislation which has been enacted by Parliament to deal with a serious social evil and be conscious of the misuse of sex-selection tests.”

“For the reasons that we have indicated, we are of the view that the judgment of the Delhi High Court needs to be stayed during the pendency of these proceedings . The judgment of the High Court squarely impinges upon the directions issued by this Court in Voluntary Health Association of Punjab . We direct in consequence that the judgment of this Court in Voluntary Health Association of Punjab shall be strictly enforced by all states and union territories untrammelled by any order of any High Court or any other court.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court stayed the Delhi High Court’s judgment, emphasizing the importance of mandatory training for medical professionals conducting pre-natal diagnostic procedures.
• The Court upheld the Central Government’s power to prescribe qualifications and training under Section 32 of the PCPNDT Act.
• The decision reinforces the need for strict enforcement of the PCPNDT Act to prevent sex-selective abortions.
• The judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding legislative policies aimed at social justice.
• The order ensures that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Voluntary Health Association of Punjab are strictly enforced.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the judgment in Voluntary Health Association of Punjab shall be strictly enforced by all states and union territories, untrammeled by any order of any High Court or any other court.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s order reinforces the Central Government’s power to prescribe training for medical professionals involved in pre-natal diagnostic procedures under the PCPNDT Act. The order also reaffirms the importance of the PCPNDT Act in preventing sex-selective abortions and underscores the need for strict enforcement of its provisions. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the Central Government has the power to prescribe minimum qualifications for persons employed at genetic centers, laboratories, and clinics under Section 32 of the PCPNDT Act, which necessarily includes the power to prescribe training. This is a reaffirmation of the previous legal position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order in Union of India vs. Indian Radiological and Imaging Association is a significant step towards ensuring the effective implementation of the PCPNDT Act. By staying the Delhi High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the importance of mandatory training for medical professionals and the Central Government’s power to prescribe such training. This decision underscores the Court’s commitment to preventing female foeticide and upholding legislative policies aimed at social justice.