JESSY JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These matters arise under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 ('the Act'). The Act was introduced with a view to prohibit pre-natal diagnostic techniques for determination of sex of foetus leading to female foeticide. Having noticed that the purpose of the Act has not been achieved despite lapse of several years, the Apex Court in Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of India and Others, 2013 4 SCC 1 issued certain directions for the effective implementation of the provisions of the Act. The said directions include directions to genetic clinics to maintain strictly the records required to be maintained by them under the Act and directions to the authorities under the Act to take action against genetic clinics and other institutions covered by the Act, if they do not maintain the records in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act. It was also directed in the said case that the provisions of the Act shall be given effect to, if necessary, by seizing the machines used for providing prenatal diagnostic services. In the light of the above directions, the Central Government constituted a National Level Inspection and Monitoring Committee ('the Committee') and the committee is now monitoring the implementation of the provisions of the Act.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos.18757 of 2017 and 19718 of 2017 is the Director of a company running a genetic clinic on the strength of the registration obtained under the Act. The members of the Committee along with the third respondent, the appropriate authority under the Act, inspected the genetic clinic of the petitioner on 02.06.2017. It was found in the course of the said inspection that the petitioner is not complying with the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules made thereunder viz, the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 ('the Rules'). Consequently, the Committee recommended to the appropriate authority to set criminal law in motion against the petitioner. W.P.(C).No.18757 of 2017 is instituted challenging the said recommendation. During the pendency of the writ petition, in compliance with the recommendation made by the Committee, the third respondent seized the ultrasound scanning machine used by the petitioner, its accessories and some of the records maintained by the petitioner in their genetic clinic. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an interlocutory application in the writ petition seeking orders for release of the machine, its accessories and the records seized from their clinic. Later, in compliance with the recommendation made by the Committee, the third respondent suspended the registration granted to the petitioner under Section 19 of the Act. W.P.(C).No.19718 of 2017 is instituted challenging the said order.

(3.) The petitioner in W.P.(C).Nos.18887 of 2017 and 19432 of 2017 is the proprietor of a diagnostic centre. The said diagnostic centre is also providing anti-natal diagnostic services on the strength of the registration obtained under the Act. The Committee along with the third respondent, the appropriate authority appointed under the Act has inspected the diagnostic centre of the petitioner on 02.06.2017 and recommendation similar to the one made in the earlier case was made in this case also. In W.P.(C). No.18887 of 2017, the petitioner is challenging the said recommendation. Subsequently, as in the earlier case, the third respondent seized the ultrasound scanning machine, its accessories and some of the records maintained by the petitioner in their diagnostic centre and the registration of the petitioner was suspended. W.P.(C).No.19432 of 2017 is preferred challenging the seizure and the order suspending the registration of the petitioner.