UNION OF INDIA versus INDIAN RADIOLOGICAL AND IMAGING ASSOCIATION AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 649 · Decided: 14-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
649
UNION OF INDIA
v.
INDIAN RADIOLOGICAL AND IMAGING
ASSOCIATION AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
(I.A. Nos. 13-15 of  2017)
IN
  (Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 16657-16659 of 2016)
MARCH 14, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Prohibition of Sex Determination) Act, 1994:
s. 32(1) and (2), and ss. 4, 5 and 6 – Writ Petition before
High Court challenging r. 3.3 (1)(b) of PCPNDT Rules, 1996 and r.
6 of PCPNDT Six Months Training Rules, 2014 – High Court held
that there is absence e of provision under the Act empowering any
of the bodies or the Central Government to prescribe qualifications
for practicing medicine with the aid of an ultrasound imaging
equipment or to prescribe nature and content of the curriculum or
duration of the qualification – Appeal to Supreme Court –
Application seeking stay of order of High Court – Held: s. 32(1)
confers rule-making power upon Central Government for “carrying
out the provisions of the Act” and to specify minimum qualification
for persons to be employed at genetic counselling centres,
laboratories and clinics – Parliament which has unquestioned
authority and legislative competence to frame the law, considered it
necessary to empower the Central Government to frame Rules to
govern the qualification of persons employed in genetic counselling
centres, laboratories and clinics – Wisdom of the competent
legislature in adopting the policy cannot be substituted by the Court
in exercise of power of judicial review – The Training Rules, 2014
were made by the Central Government in exercise of the power
conferred by Parliament – Specification of qualifications should
be read in a purposive sense which will fulfill the object of law –
Even on a plain and natural construction of the words used by
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 649
649
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
650
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
Parliament, specification of qualifications must necessarily
comprehend the power to prescribe training – The rationale is that
the training would sensitize the person of the legislation which has
been enacted to deal with a serious social evil and be conscious of
the misuse of sex-selection tests – Pre-natal diagnostic procedures
are also susceptible to grave misuse – Prima facie the Rules are
neither ultra vires the parent legislation nor do they suffer from
manifest arbitrariness – The judgment of the High Court also
squarely impinges upon the directions issued by Supreme Court in
*Voluntary Health Association case – Therefore, judgment of the
High Court needs to be stayed during pendency of the proceedings
of the case – It is directed that *Voluntary Health Association case
to be strictly enforced by all the States and Union Territories
untrammelled by any other court – Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques
s (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Rules, 1996 – r. 3.3(1)(b)
– Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition
of Sex Selection) (Six Months Training) Rules, 2014 – s. 6.
*Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of
India (2016) 10 SCC 265 : [2016] 8 SCR 192 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2016] 8 SCR 192
  referred to
Para 2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  I.A Nos. 13-15 of 2017
in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 16657-16659 of 2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2016 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W. P. (C) No. 6968 of 2011, W. P. (C)
No. 2721 of 2014 and W.P. (C) No. 3184 of 2014 respectively.
Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Vikas Singh, Colin Gonsalves,
Dr. Ashwini Kumar, Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Advs., S. Venkatesh, Varun
Singh, Somesh Srivastava, Vikas Maini, Lakshmi Raman Singh,
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Ms. Aditi Saxena, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Aruneshwar
Gupta, Varun Dewan, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar,  Mohan Prasad
Gupta, Ms. Asha G. Nair, S.S. Rawat, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Sunita
Sharma, S.W.A. Qadri, Rajesh Ranjan, Ms. Snidha Mehra, Zaid Ali,
G.S. Makker, B.V. Balaramdas, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Raushan Tara
Jaswal, K. G. Gopalakrishnan, S. R. Raghunathan, S. Santanam
Swaminadhan, Mrs. Aarthi Rajan, Ms. Nishtha Khurana, Varun Pandey,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
651
Dinkar Kalra, Aruneshwar Gupta, Pramod Dayal, B. V. Balaram Das,
Gurmeet Singh Makker, Gagan Gupta, Zoheb Hussain, Smarhar Singh,
Keshav Mohan, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
O R D E R
1. We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and
considered the written submissions tendered, f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.