Clarification on Suspension Powers under Section 20 of the PC&PNDT Act: Supreme Court Upholds Strict Compliance

Clarification on Suspension Powers under Section 20 of the PC&PNDT Act: Supreme Court Upholds Strict Compliance

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of District Appropriate Authority under the PC&PNDT Act and Chief District Health Officer v. Jashmina Dilip Devda (2024 INSC 173), addressed the interpretation and application of Section 20 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 (PC&PNDT Act). The case revolves around the suspension of registration of a medical facility, Dev Hospital, operated by Dr. Jashmina Dilip Devda, following alleged contraventions of the PC&PNDT Act.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court granted leave to hear an appeal by the District Appropriate Authority challenging the suspension orders issued against Dev Hospital. The core issue was whether the suspension orders were correctly issued under Section 20(1)&(2) or Section 20(3) of the PC&PNDT Act.

Initially, an inspection prompted the appropriate authority to suspend the hospital's registration under Section 20(1)&(2) without prior notice, leading to an appeal by Dr. Devda. The High Court found procedural lapses and set aside the suspension. Subsequently, the appropriate authority attempted to suspend the registration again under Section 20(3), citing public interest, but this too was challenged and ultimately dismissed by the Division Bench.

The Supreme Court concurred with the lower courts, emphasizing that the suspension under Section 20(3) was improperly exercised without adequate justification in the public interest, thereby upholding the decisions to revoke the suspension orders.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The appellant authority referenced Malpani Infertility Clinic Pvt. Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority (2004) to justify the suspension under Section 20(3) during pendency of prosecution, asserting that suspension in the public interest is permissible. However, the High Court and Division Bench distinguished this by highlighting conflicting interpretations, notably from J. Sadanand M. Ingle (Dr) v. State of Maharashtra (2013), which emphasized the independent and exceptional nature of Section 20(3).

Additionally, Prikant Mokalal Kapadia v. State of Gujarat (2018) and Sujit Govind Dange vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) were pivotal in underscoring that Section 20(3) requires clear justification in the public interest and cannot be exercised arbitrarily.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed Sections 20(1), (2), and (3) of the PC&PNDT Act. It clarified that:

  • Section 20(1)&(2): These subsections allow for suspension or cancellation based on breach of the Act or its rules, following a due process that includes notice and an opportunity to be heard.
  • Section 20(3): This provides an extraordinary power to suspend registration without notice, solely when the authority deems it necessary in the public interest, mandating clear written reasons.

The Court found that the initial suspension under Section 20(1)&(2) lacked procedural correctness due to the absence of notice and hearing. The subsequent suspension under Section 20(3) failed to provide adequate reasons establishing the necessity in the public interest, rendering both orders invalid.

Impact

This judgment sets a clear precedent on the stringent requirements for exercising suspension powers under the PC&PNDT Act. Authorities must ensure procedural compliance under Sections 20(1)&(2) and can only resort to Section 20(3) in exceptional circumstances with explicit justification. This safeguards medical practitioners from arbitrary suspensions and reinforces the rule of law within the regulatory framework governing pre-natal diagnostics.

Complex Concepts Simplified

PC&PNDT Act: An Indian law aimed at preventing sex-selective abortion and regulating pre-natal diagnostic techniques.

Section 20(1)&(2): Allow authorities to suspend or cancel the registration of medical facilities after due process, including notice and hearing.

Section 20(3): Grants exceptional power to suspend registration without notice, solely based on the authority's opinion of necessity in the public interest, requiring written reasons.

Public Interest: Actions taken for the benefit and well-being of the general public, rather than individual or specific group interests.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in District Appropriate Authority under the PC&PNDT Act and Chief District Health Officer v. Jashmina Dilip Devda reaffirms the necessity for regulatory authorities to adhere strictly to procedural norms when exercising suspension powers. By delineating the distinct scopes of Sections 20(1)&(2) and Section 20(3), the Court ensures that suspensions are not imposed arbitrarily but are grounded in legitimate public interest with requisite justification. This decision enhances the accountability of regulatory bodies and protects the rights of medical practitioners, thereby strengthening the integrity of the PC&PNDT Act's enforcement mechanism.

Case Details

Year: 2024
Court: Supreme Court Of India

Judge(s)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Advocates

ANITHA SHENOYHEMANTIKA WAHI

Comments