Dismissed

The Federation of Clinical Sonologist v. Union of India

Uttarakhand HC23 Dec 2020WPMS/2244/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the amendment to the Six Months Training Rules under the PCPNDT Act was valid per Supreme Court orders. Since Rule 6(1) deems all registered practitioners eligible for training, no further directions to respondents were needed; petitions dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of writ petitions and rejection of claim for direction to undertake training.

The Federation of Clinical Sonologist Vs Union of… — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2020)

¶1

WPMS No. 2244 of 2020 WPMS No. 2365 of 2020

¶2

Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶3

Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinod Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶4

Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶5

Ms. Monika Pant and Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Central Government Standing Counsels for the Union of India.

¶6

Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for respondent no. 4.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

¶8

These writ petitions have been filed by Registered Medical Practitioners challenging the notification dated 26.06.2020, as published in the Official Gazette on 29.06.2020, whereby provisions contained in the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection)(Six months Training) Rules, 2014 were amended.

¶9

The amendment Rules 2020 have been challenged mainly on the ground that they have not been laid before the House of Parliament, in terms of Section 34 of Pre-Conception and PreNatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondents have drawn attention of this Court to an order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Indian Radiological and Imaging Association & others reported in (2018) 5 SCC 773 . In the said order, it has been expressed that prima facie Training Rules, 2014 framed under Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 are valid and further that the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Voluntary Health Association of Punjab Vs Union of India , reported in (2016) 10 SCC 265 , shall be strictly enforced by all States and

¶11

Union Territories untrammeled by any order of any High Court or any other court.

¶12

Paragraph nos. 15, 16 & 17 of the said judgment are extracted below:-

¶13

“15. Prima facie, these provisions indicate that Parliament has conferred upon the Central government rule making authority to specify minimum qualification for persons to be employed at genetic counselling centres, laboratories and clinics. Specification of qualifications, in our view, should be read in a purposive sense which will fulfil the object of 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. Pre-natal diagnostic procedures are susceptible to grave misuse.

¶14

16. Parliament which has the unquestioned authority and legislative competence to frame the law considered it necessary to empower the Central government to frame rules to govern the qualifications of persons employed in genetic counselling centres, laboratories and clinics. The wisdom of the legislature in adopting the policy cannot be substituted by the court in the exercise of the power of judicial review. Prima facie the judgment of the Delhi High Court has trenched upon an area of legislative policy. Judicial review cannot extend to reappreciating the efficacy of a legislative policy adopted in a law which has been enacted by the competent legislature. Both the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the PCPNDT Act are enacted by Parliament. Parliament has the legislative competence to do so. The Training Rules 2014 were made by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by Parliament. Prima facie, the rules are neither ultra vires the parent legislation nor do they suffer from manifest arbitrariness.

¶15

17. 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”

¶16

In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement made by Hon’ble Apex Court, there is no scope for interference with the amendment Rules, published in the official Gazette on 29.06.2020.

¶17

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners then submitted that petitioners are ready and willing to undergo six months training, as contemplated under the Rules, but the respondents are not permitting them to undertake such training.

¶18

Since Rule 6(1) of the aforesaid Rules provides that every registered medical practitioner is eligible for undertaking six months training, therefore, no further direction is needed to send the petitioners for training.

¶19

In such view of the matter, the reliefs, as claimed by the petitioners, cannot be granted. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed.

¶20

Aswal

¶21

23.12.2020

The Federation of Clinical Sonologist v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Federation of Clinical Sonologist v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S New Haridwar Electric Store Vs State of Uttarakhand

M/S Narendra Electric Company Vs State of Uttarakhand

M/S Narendra Electric Company Vs State of Uttarakhand

Om Prakash Bhatia Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Urban Development Civil Secretariat Dehradun

Divya Nautiyal Vs Union of India

The Federation of Clinical Sonologist Vs Union of India