PCPNDT Act : Can USG be performed by even by MBBS after 6 months training ? : What are the effects of Hon. Supreme Court's order..


"Prima facie the judgment of the Delhi High Court has trenched upon an area of legislative policy"
 The 3 judges bench of Hon. Supreme Court observed this while staying the judgment of  Hon. Delhi High Court. Hon. Delhi High Court . 

 Case details :
Union of India V/s. Indian Radiological and Imaging Association of India & ors.
SLP. Nos. 166657-59 of 2016.

Interim Order dated :14th March, 2018 by the three judges Bench.
Coram : Hon. Dipak Misra (the then Hon.C.J.I.), Hon. D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon. A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.

Order Link :
https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/20683/20683_2016_Judgement_14-Mar-2018.pdf

Facts in Short :
1. The Hon. Supreme Court was dealing with 2 sets of Petitions with 2 main questions. i.e. the Strict implementation of PCPNDT Act and the later petitions were relating to the challenge of Judgment of Hon. Delhi High Court in relation to 6 months training rule.
2. In first part of the Judgment Hon. Apex Court has expressed its concern over the declining girl child ratio and therefore the strict implementation of PCPNDT Act in order to curb the  menace of female foeticide. It reiterated the guidelines set out in the judgment of Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v Union of India (Writ Petition (C) No.349/2006)
3. In last part of the judgement, their lordships have dealt with the Delhi High Court Judgment and at the first instance it has been observed that,
"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 re-appreciating 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"

 4. In brief lets see the background of the Delhi High Court Judgment. Hon. Delhi High Court  vide its order dated 17/02/2016 in WP Nos. 6968/2011  held that the rule no. 3(3)(1)(b) of the PCPNDT Rules (as it stands after the amendment with effect from 9th January, 2014) is ultra vires the PCPNDT Act to the extent it requires a person desirous of setting up a Genetic Clinic / Ultrasound Clinic / Imaging Centre to undergo six months training imparted in the manner prescribed in the Six Months Training. Hon. Delhi High Court also questioned the power of Central Govt. to define the Sonologists.

 Link to the Judgment of Hon. Delhi High Court.:

Aftermath of stay on Hon. Delhi High Court judgment : 
Since the effect of Delhi High Court judgment has been stayed the main effect could be summarized as under :,
a) Now Rule 3(3)(1)(b) of PCPNDT Act is in force and by virtue of aforesaid rule sonologists, imaging specialists or registered medical practitioner having six months training or one year experience in sonography or image scanning may set up ultrasound clinics or imaging centers,
c)The Rule 6 of PCPNDT Act which prescribes for Six Months Training has been restored. This rule requires six months training to register as a sonologists as well as it requires existing sonologist to qualify a competency based assessment to renew the registration & incase of failure again 6 months training to existing Sonologists.
d) If the MBBS doctors want to work as sonologist its compulsory for them to  undergo additional six months training.

 It seems that the Hon. Supreme Court was not happy with the reasoning given by Hon. Delhi High Court. Let's wait for the final judgment of Hon. Apex Court. Till that time its interim order shall be in force which stayed the effect of Delhi High Court order
Thanks & Regards

Pune.©

Comments

  1. Unknown4 July 2020 at 11:12

    In himachal pradesh I m not been allowed the ultrasound registration I have 6 months training certificate as well

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

#PCPNDT - Mere Pendency of a criminal case is not a ground to refuse the renewal of registration – Hon. P&H High Court, at Chandigarh. Adv. ROHiT ERANDE ©

 Mere Pendency of a criminal case is not a ground to refuse the renewal of registration – Hon. P&H High Court, at Chandigarh  Adv. ROHiT ERANDE  © Case Details :  CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9312 OF 2020 Dr. Sanjiv Kaushal V/s. State of Haryana and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Facts in short : 1. The  Petitioner has approached this Court, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 13.10.2016 passed by the District Appropriate Authority, Sirsa, Haryana-respondent No.2; order dated 23.04.2018 passed by the State Appropriate Authority, PNDT, Panchkula-respondent No.4 and order dated 11/14.01.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana-cum-State Appellate Authority, Health Department, on the ground that the request of the petitioner for renewal of registration under the PC & PNDT Rules, 1996 has been declined merely because of the pendency of a criminal case against ...
Read more

" The Machine which is registered under the PCPNDT Act cannot be carried to other place which is not registered" : Hon. Bombay High Court. Adv. Rohit Erande. ©

 " The Machine which is registered under the PCPNDT Act cannot be carried to other place which is not registered" : Hon. Bombay High Court. Adv. Rohit Erande. © In short, One Machine - One Place - One Registration. In its recently reported judgment of Dr. Deepak Sane V/s. State of Maharashtra, 2017(1) Mh.L.J.379, W.P. no.2995/2015, The Division Bench at Nagpur held so.. Facts in short : 1. The petitioner is the leading Medical Practitioner in Nagpur and dealing exclusively with Heart Treatment. He is required to use the 2D Echo Colour Doppler Machine for Treating his patients and for treating the patients he requires to visit the ICCU at different Hospitals. 2. IT was the case of the petitioner that he needy patients who cannot come to his clinic, for them he has to carry his 2D Echo machine, which is duly registered under the provisions of PCPNDT Act.Therefore he applied to the concerned authorities for getting permission to move the said machine at different places, but sa...
Read more