Union of India (UOI) V. Indian Radiological and Imaging Association and Ors
A LEGAL EXAMINATION OF THE PRE-CONCEPTION AND PRE-NATAL DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES ACT
Akanksha Pandey
Renaissance Law College, Indore
ABSTRACT
The case analyzes the enforcement of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act), India, which aims to prevent female feticide. The Indian Radiological and Imaging Association brought an action against some clauses in the whole Act, stating their inability to offer effective medical treatment because of the said provisions. The government of India supported the Act, arguing that it was needed in the country to curb sex selection malpractices and to attend to challenges emanating from women and girl children. For this reason, the Supreme Court of India restated the constitutionality of the Act and its presents to medical authorities provision and stressed on the need for medical authorities to adhere to the limitations for the sake of health.
1. PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE
Case No
Civil Suit (I.A Nos. 13-15 of 2017)
Jurisdiction
Delhi High Court
Case Filed on
2016
Case Decided on
14th March, 2018
Judges
Hon'ble Chief Justice, Hon'ble Justice A M Khanwilkar and Hon'ble Justice Dipak Misra
Legal Provisions involved
Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act), Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Constitution of India, 1950, Section – 3,4,5,6,32 of PCPNDT, 1996
2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
In 1994, the government of India implemented rules under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act to address the misuse of ultrasound technology for sex determination and gender-based abortions One of the rule strongly recommended that any doctor using ultrasound machines should be subjected to six months of intensive training. The Indian Radiological and Imaging Association (IRIA)[1] And other medical organizations objected to this rule, stating that the six-month special centre training requirement was irrelevant and beyond the scope of the PCPNDT Act.
In the end, the case was file towards the High Court of Delhi, IRIA prevailed reversed and overturned the decision by the Lower Court that the six months is an unjust regulation as it doesn’t bother with the provisions under P C P N D T Act.
Immediately afterwards, the Union of India filed an appeal to the Supreme Court against the ruling of the Delhi High Court, arguing that the six months doctor training rule was helpful in eliminating the illicit practice of ultrasound machines given for sex determination and effectively enforcing the provisions of the PCPNDT Act which was enacted to curtail Female Foeticide.
Therefore, the cause of action in the Supreme Court is entitled Union of India vs Indian Radiological and Imaging Association as the Union of India seeks to set aside the order of the high court and implement the training rule
3. ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE
There were three primary issues involved in the case,
1. Did the government have the right to implement the Six Months Training Rule?
2. Is the 1996 PCPNDT Rules' Rule 3(3)(1)(b) valid?
3. Does the Six Months Training Rule infringe upon the professional credentials of medical practitioners?
4. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Plaintiff
The Union of India argued that it required those, who use ultrasound machines as medical practitioners, to have Six Months of Training in understanding the legal as well as ethical aspects under the PCPNDT Act. This rule was formulated to curb the occurrence of ultrasounds being abused for sex determination which further leads to female foeticide.
The Union of India pointed out that it was within its legal powers to make rules such as prescribing the qualifications and training of medical practitioners under subsection 32 of the PCPNDT Act. They contended that the Six Months Training Rule was comfortably within the powers conferred upon the Act about observing the objectives of the law and curbing its abuse.
The Union of India recalled in its submission to the court that there had been an order by the supreme court earlier on in (Voluntary Health Assoc Of Punjab Vs Union Of India) for the effective implementation of the provisions of the PCPNDT Act and its associated rules so that any cases of sex determination would be eliminated. This six-month training was introduced as a major strategy to avoid illicit sex determination on these grounds that had been issued.
Defendant
The IRIA contended that the PCPNDT Act did not empower the government to implement the Six Months Training Rule. They asserted that the government exceeded its authority when such a rule was imposed as it was not provided for in the Act.’
IRIA argued that the six-month training requirement conflicted with the Medical Council of India's (MCI) established professional requirements. They contended that this extra training mandated by the government was pointless and unconstitutional and that the MCI is the only body with the jurisdiction to set requirements for medical professionals.
IRIA argued that medical professionals shouldn't be required to do further training if they were already competent and certified by the MCI. They contended that this restriction did not much advance the prevention of sex determination and instead placed an unwarranted burden on physicians who were already skilled in performing ultrasonography examinations.
5. LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED
The following selections from the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) are relative to the current subject matter:
· Section 32 of the PCPNDT Act allows the Central Government to make rules for the execution of the Act where such procedures are applicable."
· Rule 3(3)(1)(b) of the PCPNDT Rules,1996 Both qualifications and experience measures, Alternatively, any sinologist, imaging specialist, radiologist, or registered medical practitioner who was trained: graduate or postgraduate degree of any field, or complete a “Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) (Six Months Training) Rules, 2014.
· ”Rule 6: Registered medical practitioners are entitled to six months of additional training as Medical Suffragette offers reasonable provisions to practitioners.
Section 2(p) of the PNDT Act states. It is also important to note that medical imaging technician or sonologist is abused as an imaging postgraduate by the definition of MCI And this is where MCI does not provide those degrees.
under Section 2(d) of the PNDT Act, the term ‘genetic clinic’ means a facility that is to undertake pre-natal diagnostic tests.
There is a section 2(e) ‘Genetic laboratory’. This is an establishment for the Investigation of genetic material supplied by a genetic clinic for prenatal diagnosis.
RATIONALE
The apex court’s ruling in this case is derived from the legislative power conferred to the Court under the PCPNDT Act, the Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques Prohibition of Sex Selection Act of 1994. The Court highlighted that female infanticide, which is a very socio culturally undesirable practice in India, occurs due to the unethical practice of ultrasound for the determination of sex and this is the rationale for the Act’s existence. In 2008, the Biosafety Act empowered the Union of India to make rules related to professional conduct including prenatal procedures, medical termination of pregnancy and others. The six-month’s training rule, as implemented, was found to be necessary to ensure that medical staff members have the relevant training and are fully cognizant of the responsibilities imputed to them and of the legal cover provided by the PCPNDT Act.
OBITER DICTA
In Union of India vs. Indian Radiological and Imaging Association 2018 However, the supreme court made several obiter dicta observations, the relevant directions which may not infringe any other provisions of the Act but were important for the ruling. The Court stressed the necessity for mandatory training of sonologists and radiologists under the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act, arguing that this training is crucial in combating the appropriate utilization of diagnostic devices for sex selection.
JUDGEMENT IN BRIEF
ISSUE I The Supreme Court of India upheld the Six Months Training Rule as a valid exercise of the constituent power by the state. It opined that the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act, 1994 enables the Executive within the government to formulate policies to give effect to the provisions under the Act. However, section 32 of the Act empowers the Central Government to prescribe qualifications and training for persons in charge of pre-natal diagnostic procedures.
The Central administration required the power to provide legislation on the qualifications of staff engaged in center-laboratories-labs-counseling centres genetics. Laws on genetic engineering were acceptable to Parliament which, as is indubitable, is sovereign and vested with a legislative mandate to do so. The court does not possess the power to administer restraint in the policy-making processes in the legislature with its accompanying assumption of judicial review over policy-making. It seems the judgement of the Delhi High Court has cut down some specific parameters of the legislative policy.
Assessing whether the policy in law X, which was legislated by the appropriate body, is having the desired effect is also not a matter of judicial scrutiny. Parliament is both the legislator of the PCPNDT Act and the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and is competent to do so.
ISSUE II
The Supreme Court has upheld Rule 3(3)(1)(b) of the 1996 PCPNDT Rules. The Court found that this rule is in support of the relevant provisions of the PCPNDT Which is looking at curbing sex selection and advancing the rights of women. The Court made emphasis on the need to undertake the training as an element that would ensure adherence to the Act as well as reduce the abuse of ultrasound machines.
The High Court’s judgment is in utter breach of the directions which this Court gave in the Voluntary Health Association of Punjab case. Therefore, all the states and also the union territories have been disposed to obey the determination in the Voluntary Health Association of Punjab case without any limitations from the High Courts or any other Courts to the place that it is held. The ruling and order of the Delhi High Court dated 17 February 2016 in the case shall remain in force until the matter is finally disposed of. Therefore, there is no merit in the interlocutory applications and the same are dismissed.
ISSUE III:
The Six Months Training Rule cannot override the professional credentials of the medical practitioners. This was underscored in the use of the words in history This was argued in paragraph 11 where the Court said that there is a need to strike a balance between the rights of practitioners and the State’s duty to control medical practices in the interest of public with special regard to the gender issues.
7. COMMENTARY
The case of the Union of India vs Indian Radiological and Imaging Association addresses issues surrounding the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The Supreme Court upheld the requirement for medical professionals to undergo six months of specialised training before using ultrasound devices, emphasizing the government's authority to enact laws to prevent the misuse of ultrasonography for sex determination. This case highlights the judiciary's role in supporting laws aimed at protecting vulnerable individuals and emphasises the balance between legislative authority and judicial review. The ruling sets a standard for future laws intended to protect the public interest from potential misuse of medical technology and ensure ethical behaviour in the medical industry.
8. IMPORTANT CASES REFERRED
· Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of India
· State of Tamil Nadu v. K. S. Sivasamy
9. REFERENCES
Union of India v. Indian Radiological & Imaging Ass’n, (2018) 2 SCC 773 (India), available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37864053/
Legal Service India, Lawyers Directory, LEGAL SERVICE INDIA, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/#google_vignette (last visited Oct. 2, 2024).
Advocate Khoj, Legal Information, ADVOCATE KHOJ, https://www.advocatekhoj.com/ (last visited Oct. 2, 2024).
[1] Writ Petition (c) No. 349 of 2006