District Appropriate Authority under the PNDT Act and Chief District Health Officer Vs. Jashmina Dilip Devda
Background and Facts
The case arose from an inspection conducted on October 21, 2010, at Dev Hospital, Ahmedabad, run by Dr. Jashmina Dilip Devda. The inspection team, acting on a complaint, found several lapses and violations of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 (PC&PNDT Act) and its rules. As a result, the sonography machine at the hospital was seized, and the hospital’s registration under the Act was suspended.
Legal Issue
The core issue before the Supreme Court was the interpretation of Section 20 of the PC&PNDT Act—specifically, the powers of the Appropriate Authority under subsections (1), (2), and (3) to suspend or cancel the registration of a genetic clinic or hospital. The question was whether the authority could suspend registration without prior notice under Section 20(3), and in what circumstances such power could be exercised.
Key Legal Principles and Reasoning
Section 20(1) & (2): These subsections empower the Appropriate Authority to suspend or cancel registration after issuing notice, providing an opportunity to be heard, and considering the advice of the Advisory Committee, if there is a breach of the Act or its rules.
Section 20(3): This subsection confers an additional, independent power to suspend registration without prior notice if the authority forms an opinion that such action is necessary or expedient in the public interest. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this power must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, with reasons recorded in writing.
The Court emphasized that while the authority can act suo motu or on a complaint, the use of Section 20(3) is not a substitute for the due process required under subsections (1) and (2) but is intended for urgent, interim action in the public interest.
Judgment and Outcome
The Supreme Court held that the Appropriate Authority’s power under Section 20(3) to suspend registration without notice is valid but must be used only when immediate action is justified in the public interest. Such suspension should be for an interim period and not prolonged unduly. The authority must record specific reasons for invoking this power, ensuring that it is not exercised arbitrarily or as a matter of routine.
Significance
This judgment provides a clear interpretation of the PC&PNDT Act’s regulatory framework, balancing the need for strict enforcement against misuse of pre-natal diagnostic techniques with the requirement for procedural fairness. The ruling ensures that clinics and hospitals are protected from arbitrary suspension, while also empowering authorities to act swiftly in genuine cases of public interest violations.
Key Points:
Section 20(3) allows for immediate suspension of registration without notice, but only in exceptional, urgent circumstances and for a limited period.
The authority must record reasons in writing and cannot use this power as a substitute for the regular process under Section 20(1) & (2).
The judgment strengthens procedural safeguards and clarifies the scope of regulatory powers under the PC&PNDT Act.
RELATED Blog
0 comments