Summary
In an interim order, the Supreme Court stayed the Delhi High Court judgment concerning PCPNDT ultrasound training qualifications. Prima facie, the Central Government’s authority to prescribe minimum qualifications included power to require training directed to the statute’s preventive purpose. The High Court ruling conflicted with the Supreme Court’s earlier implementation directions. Those directions were to be strictly enforced by all States and Union Territories during the pending proceedings. Final validity of the challenged provisions was not decided.
Issues
- Whether an interim stay was warranted against the High Court judgment restricting the training regime.
- Whether statutory qualification-setting power prima facie included training requirements.
Provisions considered
- Sections 3 and 32(2)(i), Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994Read together, the quoted provisions prima facie authorised prescription of minimum qualifications for persons employed at registered facilities, including training serving the Act’s purposes. This reasoning supported interim relief rather than final disposal of the validity challenge. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- Rule 6, Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) (Six Months Training) Rules, 2014The quoted rule provided eligibility for training and a competency-assessment-based exemption for existing practitioners, with full training on failure. The Court stayed the contrary High Court judgment pending final disposal. (¶¶ 6, 9, 10, 11, 12)
Held
- The 2016 Voluntary Health Association directions required implementation of the six-month training rules as integral to combating misuse of diagnostic techniques. The contrary High Court ruling impaired those directions and required interim suspension. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11)
- Prima facie, power to prescribe qualifications comprehended training, including sensitisation to the statute’s protective purpose. The Court considered the High Court’s rejection of statutory power and reassessment of legislative policy erroneous at this interim stage; it did not finally adjudicate every issue of qualification or medical practice. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- Operation of the Delhi High Court judgment dated 17 February 2016 was stayed pending final disposal. All States and Union Territories were directed strictly to enforce the Supreme Court’s Voluntary Health Association judgment unimpeded by contrary lower-court orders. Only the interlocutory applications were disposed of. (¶¶ 11, 12)
Result
Interlocutory applications disposed of. Delhi High Court judgment stayed pending final disposal; earlier Supreme Court implementation directions to be strictly enforced by States and Union Territories.