the PCPNDT Act or the Rules framed thereunder, which mandate installation of a lift/ ramp, is not convincing. While the object of the PCPNDT Act relates to the prohibition of sex selection and regulation of pre-natal diagnostic techniques, nonetheless, the provisions of the Act stipulate certain minimum standards pertaining to space and safety that must be satisfied in order to set up a clinic. As per Section 18(5) of the PCPNDT Act, the registration of a genetic clinic is conditional subject to satisfaction of the appropriate authorities with respect to the facilities, equipment and standards followed by the Clinic. Furthermore, Rule 3(3)(1) of the PreConception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 prescribes “adequate space” as a necessary criterion for setting up a genital/ ultrasound clinic. Moreover, the Respondents have also appropriately relied on other relevant legal frameworks that prescribe certain safety criteria for buildings, which, in the opinion of the Court, would also apply to such clinics. For instance, the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021 incorporates fire safety guidelines established by the National Disaster Management Authority in 2016, which emphasize infrastructure safety requirements. Furthermore, the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 mandates the incorporation of ramps in hospitals and health centres to ensure accessibility for all, including differently-abled individuals. These provisions underscore that safety standards in healthcare facilities are governed not solely by the PCPNDT Act but also by broader norms and regulations intended to protect patient safety and accessibility. Hence, the Petitioner cannot bypass his obligation to suitably update the Clinic in line with the appropriate norms and guidelines merely because the PCPNDT Act does not specifically mention such requirements.
