Supreme Court Upholds Inspection Authority under PC and PNDT Act: State of Orissa vs. Mamata Sahoo (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: July 16, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 717

Judges: R. Banumathi, J., A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can a government official, specifically a Tehsildar, conduct inspections of ultrasound clinics under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC and PNDT Act) if authorized by the District Magistrate? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in this case. The court examined whether the High Court of Orissa was correct in quashing proceedings against a clinic for violations under the PC and PNDT Act, based on the argument that the Tehsildar lacked the authority to conduct the inspection. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna delivered the judgment, with Justice Banumathi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On May 28, 2014, a joint inspection was conducted at Shri Jagannath Hospital’s Ultrasound Unit in Dhenkanal, Orissa. The inspection team, which included a Tehsildar, found violations of Sections 3(2), 5, and 29 of the PC and PNDT Act. Consequently, the ultrasound machine and other equipment were seized, and the clinic’s registration was suspended on June 18, 2014. A complaint was filed against the clinic under Section 28(2) of the PC and PNDT Act. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offenses and issued summons to the respondents.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondents filed a petition before the High Court of Orissa under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to quash the proceedings. They argued that the inspection was conducted by the Tehsildar without proper authorization and that the District Magistrate, being the Appropriate Authority, could not delegate their powers. The High Court quashed the proceedings, agreeing that the Tehsildar lacked the authority to conduct the inspection on May 28, 2014. The High Court relied on an Office Memorandum dated July 27, 2007, which stated that the District Magistrate could only nominate an Executive Magistrate to assist in monitoring, not to delegate the entire authority.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Section 28(1)(a) of the PC and PNDT Act, which states:

“28. Cognizance of offences.- (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by – (a)the Appropriate Authority concerned, or any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, or the Appropriate Authority;“

The Court also discussed the Office Memorandum of the Health and Family Welfare Department dated July 27, 2007, which appointed the District Magistrate of each district as the “District Appropriate Authority” under the PC and PNDT Act. The memorandum allowed the District Magistrate to nominate an Executive Magistrate to assist in monitoring the implementation of the Act. It also appointed Sub-Divisional Magistrates as “Appropriate Authorities” for their respective sub-divisions.

Arguments

The appellant-State argued that the Tehsildar was authorized to conduct the inspection based on Order No. 388 dated May 27, 2014, issued by the Collector-District Magistrate-cum-District Appropriate Authority. This order specifically authorized the Tehsildar to inspect the clinic and take necessary legal action. The State contended that the High Court overlooked this authorization.

The respondents argued that the authorization order dated May 27, 2014, was not mentioned in the counter-affidavit filed by the Chief District Medical Officer in the High Court. They also raised doubts about the correctness of the order, stating it was not shown to them during the inspection.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but addressed the following key question:

• Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the proceedings based on the argument that the Tehsildar lacked the authority to conduct the inspection under the PC and PNDT Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court did not properly appreciate the Office Memorandum dated July 27, 2007, and the authorization order dated May 27, 2014. The Court held that the Tehsildar was authorized to conduct the inspection.

The Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the complaint to the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal, directing the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with the law.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the presence of an authorization order, which the High Court had failed to consider. The Court emphasized that the Tehsildar was authorized to conduct the inspection, and the High Court’s decision to quash the proceedings was not in accordance with the law. The court’s reasoning focused on the procedural aspect of the case, rather than the merits of the complaint itself.

The Court observed: “The High Court, in our considered view, did not properly appreciate the Office Memorandum dated 27.07.2007 and erred in quashing the proceedings initiated against the respondents and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.”

The Court also stated: “Order dated 27.05.2014 has been mentioned in the complaint itself. However, the said order has not been taken note of by the High Court as it was not mentioned in the counter.”

The Court clarified: “We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.”

Key Takeaways

• Authorization for Inspection: A Tehsildar can conduct inspections under the PC and PNDT Act if specifically authorized by the District Magistrate or appropriate authority.
• Importance of Authorization Orders: Courts must consider all relevant authorization orders and documents when assessing the validity of inspections.
• Scope of Office Memorandums: Office Memorandums should be interpreted in a manner that promotes the effective implementation of laws.
• Procedural Compliance: The High Court’s decision was overturned due to a procedural oversight in not considering the authorization order.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal, to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an Executive Magistrate, such as a Tehsildar, can be authorized by the District Magistrate to conduct inspections under the PC and PNDT Act, provided there is a specific authorization order. The judgment clarifies the scope of authority under the PC and PNDT Act and emphasizes the importance of considering all relevant authorization documents in legal proceedings. This ruling reinforces the powers of the District Magistrate to delegate inspection duties to ensure effective implementation of the Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Orissa vs. Mamata Sahoo clarifies that a Tehsildar can conduct inspections under the PC and PNDT Act if properly authorized by the District Magistrate. The court emphasized the importance of considering all relevant documents and authorization orders, setting aside the High Court’s decision and restoring the complaint for further proceedings. This ruling reinforces the procedural aspects of inspections under the Act and ensures that the District Magistrate’s authority is upheld.