BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court quashed the proceedings initiated against two doctors, after the seizure and cancellation of registration of their diagnostic centre by the District Appropriate Authority (DAA) and Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PNDT) District Health and Family Welfare Office even before issuing show-cause notice, the minimum due procedure of law to be followed.
Also, the court directed the Secretary of Health and Family Welfare Department to issue guidelines to be followed by the authorities under the PNDT (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act before initiating action on such centres for violation of law.
The court said that the guidelines issued by the Government of India are stated to have been adopted by the state but it appears to remain only in paper. None of the procedures stipulated in the guidelines in furtherance of the Act are followed in the case at hand, the court observed.
“Leaving loopholes in law would only form a protective veneer to the violators of the law, if any. The loopholes should not blur the intent behind the enactment and the rigour of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the guidelines should be strictly adhered to, by the authorities, while conducting inspection and registration of criminal cases”, the court said.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order while allowing the petition filed by Dr Subhalakshmi N, proprietor of Medizone Medical Centre and Dr Moscow Mani Sa, an operator of the ultrasound machine at the centre situated at Kaggadasapura in the city.
The court quashed the notice dated December 8, 2023, issued by the authorities after the seizure of the diagnostic centre. It also quashed the order of cancellation of the registration without following the procedure under Section 20 of the Act after they found various lacunae, including alleged determination of sex which leads to female foeticide, during their inspection to the centre. The court, however, said that the authorities should issue notice for which the petitioners have to submit their reply. Thereafter, the authorities are at liberty to initiate action in strict consonance with Section 20 of the Act, if the need arises, after submission of a reply or otherwise from the hands of the petitioners, the court said.