UNION OF INDIAversusINDIAN RADIOLOGICAL AND IMAGING ASSOCIATION AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

                       [2018] 3 S.C.R. 649                              649


                        UNION OF INDIA                                  A
                              v.
           INDIAN RADIOLOGICAL AND IMAGING
             ASSOCIATION AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
                  (I.A. Nos. 13-15 of 2017)
                                                                        B
                                 IN
       (Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 16657-16659 of 2016)
                         MARCH 14, 2018
      [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
                                                                        C
             DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
      Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Prohibition of Sex Determination) Act, 1994:
       s. 32(1) and (2), and ss. 4, 5 and 6 – Writ Petition before
High Court challenging r. 3.3 (1)(b) of PCPNDT Rules, 1996 and r.       D
6 of PCPNDT Six Months Training Rules, 2014 – High Court held
that there is absence e of provision under the Act empowering any
of the bodies or the Central Government to prescribe qualifications
for practicing medicine with the aid of an ultrasound imaging
equipment or to prescribe nature and content of the curriculum or
                                                                        E
duration of the qualification – Appeal to Supreme Court –
Application seeking stay of order of High Court – Held: s. 32(1)
confers rule-making power upon Central Government for “carrying
out the provisions of the Act” and to specify minimum qualification
for persons to be employed at genetic counselling centres,
laboratories and clinics – Parliament which has unquestioned            F
authority and legislative competence to frame the law, considered it
necessary to empower the Central Government to frame Rules to
govern the qualification of persons employed in genetic counselling
centres, laboratories and clinics – Wisdom of the competent
legislature in adopting the policy cannot be substituted by the Court
in exercise of power of judicial review – The Training Rules, 2014      G
were made by the Central Government in exercise of the power
conferred by Parliament – Specification of qualifications should
be read in a purposive sense which will fulfill the object of law –
Even on a plain and natural construction of the words used by
                                                                        H
                                 649
650            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A     Parliament, specification of qualifications must necessarily
      comprehend the power to prescribe training – The rationale is that
      the training would sensitize the person of the legislation which has
      been enacted to deal with a serious social evil and be conscious of
      the misuse of sex-selection tests – Pre-natal diagnostic procedures
      are also susceptible to grave misuse – Prima facie the Rules are
B
      neither ultra vires the parent legislation nor do they suffer from
      manifest arbitrariness – The judgment of the High Court also
      squarely impinges upon the directions issued by Supreme Court in
      *Voluntary Health Association case – Therefore, judgment of the
      High Court needs to be stayed during pendency of the proceedings
C     of the case – It is directed that *Voluntary Health Association case
      to be strictly enforced by all the States and Union Territories
      untrammelled by any other court – Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques
      s (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Rules, 1996 – r. 3.3(1)(b)
      – Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition
      of Sex Selection) (Six Months Training) Rules, 2014 – s. 6.
D
            *Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of
            India (2016) 10 SCC 265 : [2016] 8 SCR 192 –
            referred to.
                             Case Law Reference
E           [2016] 8 SCR 192           referred to           Para 2
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A Nos. 13-15 of 2017
      in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 16657-16659 of 2016.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2016 of the High Court
F     of Delhi at New Delhi in W. P. (C) No. 6968 of 2011, W. P. (C)
      No. 2721 of 2014 and W.P. (C) No. 3184 of 2014 respectively.
            Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Vikas Singh, Colin Gonsalves,
      Dr. Ashwini Kumar, Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Advs., S. Venkatesh, Varun
      Singh, Somesh Srivastava, Vikas Maini, Lakshmi Raman Singh,
      Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Ms. Aditi Saxena, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Aruneshwar
G
      Gupta, Varun Dewan, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Mohan Prasad
      Gupta, Ms. Asha G. Nair, S.S. Rawat, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Sunita
      Sharma, S.W.A. Qadri, Rajesh Ranjan, Ms. Snidha Mehra, Zaid Ali,
      G.S. Makker, B.V. Balaramdas, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Raushan Tara
      Jaswal, K. G. Gopalakrishnan, S. R. Raghunathan, S. Santanam
H     Swaminadhan, Mrs. Aarthi Rajan, Ms. Nishtha Khurana, Varun Pandey,
UNION OF INDIA v. INDIAN RADIOLOGICAL AND IMAGING                                    651
               ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

Dinkar Kalra, Aruneshwar Gupta, Pramod Dayal, B. V. Balaram Das,                     A
Gurmeet Singh Makker, Gagan Gupta, Zoheb Hussain, Smarhar Singh,
Keshav Mohan, Advs. for the appearing parties.
     The following Order of the Court was delivered:
                                 ORDER
       1. We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and               B
considered the written submissions tendered, for the purpose of evaluating
the grant of interim relief.
       2. In Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v Union of
      1
India , this Court by a judgment dated 8 November 2016 issued
comprehensive directions for the purpose of effective implementation                 C
of the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic
Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 19942. The directions
issued by this Court are extracted below:
           “33. Keeping in view the deliberations made from time to
           time and regard being had to the purpose of the Act and                   D
           the far reaching impact of the problem, we think it
           appropriate to issue the following directions in addition to
           the directions issued in the earlier order:-
          (a) All the States and the Union Territories in India shall maintain
              a centralized database of civil registration records from all
                                                                                     E
              registration units so that information can be made available
              from the website regarding the number of boys and girls being
              born.
          (b) The information that shall be displayed on the website shall
              contain the birth information for each District, Municipality,
              Corporation or Gram Panchayat sothat a visual comparison of            F
              boys and girls born can be immediately seen.
          (c) The statutory authorities if not constituted as envisaged under
              the Act shall be constituted forthwith and the competent
              authorities shall take steps for there constitution of the statutory
              bodies so that they can become immediately functional after            G
              expiry of the term. That apart, they shall meet regularly so
              that the provisions of the Act can be implemented in reality
              and the effectiveness of the legislation is felt and realized in
              the society.
1
    Writ Petition (c) No. 349 of 2006
2
                                                                                     H
    PCPNDT Act
652       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A     (d) The provisions contained in Sections 22 and 23 shall be strictly
          adhered to. Section 23(2) shall be duly complied with and it
          shall be reported by the authorities so that the State Medical
          Council takes necessary action after the intimation is given
          under the said provision. The Appropriate Authorities who have
          been appointed under Section 17(1) and 17(2) shall be imparted
B
          periodical training to carry out the functions as required under
          various provisions of the Act.
      (e) If there has been violation of any of the provisions of the Act
          or the Rules, proper action has to be taken by the authorities
          under the Act so that the legally inapposite acts are immediately
C         curbed.
      (f) The Courts which deal with the complaints under the Act shall
           be fast tracked and the concerned High Courts shall issue
           appropriate directions in that regard.
D     (g) The judicial officers who are to deal with these cases under
          the Act shall be periodically imparted training in the Judicial
          Academies or Training Institutes, as the case may be, so that
          they can be sensitive and develop the requisite sensitivity as
          projected in the objects and reasons of the Act and its various
          provisions and in view of the need of the society.
E
      (h) The Director of Prosecution or, if the said post is not there, the
          Legal Remembrancer or the Law Secretary shall take stock
          of things with regard to the lodging of prosecution so that the
          purpose of the Act is subserved.

F     (I) The Courts that deal with the complaints under the Act shall
          deal with the matters in promptitude and submit the quarterly
          report to the High Courts through the concerned Sessions and
          District Judge.
      (j) The learned Chief Justices of each of the High Courts in the
          country are requested to constitute a Committee of three
G
          Judges that can periodically oversee the progress of the cases.
      (k) The awareness campaigns with regard to the provisions of the
          Act as well as the social awareness shall be undertaken as per
          the direction No.9.8 in the order dated March 4,2013 passed in
          Voluntary Health Association of Punjab (supra).
H
UNION OF INDIA v. INDIAN RADIOLOGICAL AND IMAGING                            653
               ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

    (l) The State Legal Services Authorities of the States shall give        A
        emphasis on this campaign during the spread of legal aid and
        involve the para-legal volunteers.
    (m) The Union of India and the States shall see to it that appropriate
        directions are issued to the authorities of All India Radio and
        Doordarshan functioning in various States to give wide publicity     B
        pertaining to the saving of the girl child and the grave dangers
        the society shall face because of female foeticide.
    (n) All the appropriate authorities including the States and districts
        notified under the Act shall submit quarterly progress report to
        the Government of India through the State Government and             C
        maintain Form H for keeping the information of all registrations
        readily available as per sub-rule 6 of Rule 18A of the Rules.
    (o) The States and Union Territories shall implement the
        Pre-conceptionand Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques
        (Prohibition of Sex Selection)(Six Months Training) Rules, 2014      D
        forthwith considering that the training provided therein is
        imperative for realising the objects and purpose of this Act.
    (p) As the Union of India and some States framed incentive
        schemes for the girl child, the States that have not framed such
        schemes, may introduce such schemes.”(Emphasis supplied)             E
      3. The PCPNDT Act was enacted by Parliament, as its
Preamble indicates, to prohibit sex-selection, and to regulate pre-natal
diagnostic techniques so as to prevent their misuse for sex
determination. The Preamble reads thus:
      “An Act to provide for the regulation of the use of pre-natal          F
      diagnostic techniques for the purpose of detecting genetic or
      metabolic disorders or chromosomal abnormalities or certain
      congenital malformations or sex linked disorders and for the
      prevention of the misuse of such techniques for the purpose of
      pre-natal sex determination leading to female foeticide; and, for
                                                                             G
      matters connected there with or incidental thereto.”
      4. The intent of Parliament in enacting the law is clarified in the
Statement of Objects and Reasons which accompanied the introduction
of the Bill. Insofar as it is material to the present controversy, the
Statement of Objects and Reasons reads thus:
                                                                             H
654      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A     “Introduction:

      In the recent past Pre-natal Diagnostic Centres sprang up in the
      urban areas of the country using pre-natal diagnostic techniques
      for determination of sex of the foetus. Such centres became very
      popular and their growth was tremendous as the female child is
B     not welcomed with open arms in most of the Indian families. The
      result was that such centres became centres of female foeticide.
      Such abuse of the technique is against the female sex and affects
      the dignity and status of women. Various Organisation working
      for the welfare and uplift of the women raised their heads against
C     such an abuse.”

      Statement of Objects and Reasons

      It is proposed to prohibit pre-natal diagnostic techniques for
      determination of sex of the foetus leading to female foeticide.
D     Such abuse of techniques is determination against the female sex
      and affects the dignity and status of women. A legislation is
      required to regulate the use of such techniques and to provide
      deterrent punishment to stop such inhuman act.

      The Bill, inter alia provides for:-
E
      (i) prohibition of the misuse of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for
           determination of sex of foetus, leading to female foeticide;

      (ii) prohibition of advertisement of pre-natal diagnostic techniques
           for detection or determination of sex;
F
      (iii) permission and regulation of the use of pre-natal diagnostic
            techniques for the purpose of detection of specific genetic
            abnormalities or disorders;

      (iv) permitting the use of such techniques only under certain
G          conditions by the registered institutions; and

      (v) punishment for violation of the provisions of the proposed
          legislation.

      2. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives.”
H
UNION OF INDIA v. INDIAN RADIOLOGICAL AND IMAGING                               655
               ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

        5. The comprehensivedirections issued by this Court in its decision     A
in Voluntary Health Association of Punjab (Supra)must be read as
integral to the enforcement of a law which has been enacted by
Parliament to curb a grave social evil and to render the statutory provisions
truly effective to curb the mischief which was sought to be addressed
by enacting the law. More specifically, in its judgment
                                                                                B
dated 8 November 2016, this Court has required the states and the
Union territories to implement the Pre-conception and Pre-natal
Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) (Six Months
Training) Rules, 2014 forthwith. The decision explains that the provision
for training required under the above subordinate legislation, is imperative
to realise the objects and purposes of the Act.                                 C
      6. The impact of the directions which have been issued by this
Court is negated by a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the
Delhi High Court on 17 February 2016 in a batch of cases including
Indian Radiological and Imaging Association (IRIA) v Union of
India 3 , Indian Medical Association v Union of India 4 and                     D
Sonological Society of India v Union of India5.Before the Delhi High
Court, there was a challenge to the provisions of Rule 3(3)(1)(b) of the
PCPNDT Rules,1996 and Rule 6of the Six Months Training Rules as
amended by a notification dated 9 January 2014. Rule 3.3(1)(b), which
was in challenge reads as follows:
                                                                                E
       “3.3(1) Any person having adequate space and being or
       employing….
       (a)…
       (b)…a Sonologist, Imaging Specialist, Radiologist or Registered
       Medical Practitioner having Post Graduate degree or diploma or           F
       six months training duly imparted in the manner prescribed in the
       “the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (
       Prohibition of Sex Selection) (Six Months Training) Rules, 2014.”
      Rule 6 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Prohibition of Sex Selection) (Six Months Training) Rules, 2014 is in the      G
following terms:
3
  Writ Petition (C) No. 6968 of 2011
4
  Writ Petition (C) No. 2721 of 2014
5
  Writ Petition (C) No. 3184 of 2014
                                                                                H
656            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A           “6. Eligibility for training.-
            (1)Any registered medical practitioner shall be eligible for
            undertaking the said six months training.
            (2) The existing registered medical practitioners, who are
B           conducting ultrasound procedures in a Genetic Clinic or
            Ultrasound Clinic or Imaging Centre on the basis of one year
            experience or six months training are exempted from undertaking
            the said training provided they are able to qualify the competency
            based assessment specified in Schedule II and in case of failure
            to clear the said competency based exam, they shall be required
C           to undertake the complete six months training, as provided under
            these rules, for the purpose of renewal of registrations.”
            Rule 6(2) provides for an exemption to existing registered
      medical practitioners conducting ultrasound procedures in a genetic or
      ultrasound clinic or imaging centre subject to qualifying in the
D     competencybased assessment.
             7. The Delhi High Court has inter alia held that it was unable to
      find any provision in the PCPNDT Act empowering any of the bodies
      constituted under the law or even the Central government to prescribe
      qualifications for practicing medicine with the aid of an ultrasound
E     imaging equipment or to prescribe the nature and content of the curriculum
      or duration of the qualification. While disposing of the batch of writ
      petitions, the Delhi High Court has issued the following directions:
            (i) “that Section 2(p) of the PNDT Act defining a Sonologist or
                 Imaging Specialist, is bad to the extent it includes persons
F                possessing a postgraduate qualification in ultrasonography or
                 imaging techniques – because there is no such qualification
                 recognized by MCI and the PNDT Act does not empower
                 the statutory bodies constituted thereunder or the Central
                 Government to devise and coin new qualification;
G           (ii) We hold that all places including vehicles where ultrasound
                 machine or imaging machine or scanner or other equipment
                 capable of determining sex of the foetus or has the potential
                 of detection of sex during pregnancy or selection of sex before
                 conception, require registration under the Act;
H
UNION OF INDIA v. INDIAN RADIOLOGICAL AND IMAGING                              657
               ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

      (iii) However, if the person seeking registration (a) makes a            A
            declaration in the form to be prescribed by the Central
            Supervisory Board to the effect that the said machine or
            equipment is not intended for conducting pre-natal diagnostic
            procedures; (b) gives an undertaking to not use or allow the
            use of the same for pre-natal diagnostic procedures; and, (c)
                                                                               B
            has a “silent observer” or any other equipment installed on
            the ultrasound machines, as may be prescribed by the Central
            Supervisory Board, capable of storing images of each
            sonography tests done therewith, such person would be
            exempt from complying with the provisions of the Act and
            the Rules with respect to Genetic Clinics, Genetic Laboratory      C
            or Genetic Counselling Centres;
      (iv) If however for any technical reasons, the Central Supervisory
            Board is of the view that such “silent observer” cannot be
            installed or would not serve the purpose, then the Central
            Supervisory Board would prescribe other conditions which           D
            such registrant would require to fulfil, to remain exempt as
            aforesaid;
      (v) However, such registrants would otherwise remain bound by
           the prohibitory and penal provisions of the Act and would
           further remain liable to give inspection of the “silent observer”   E
           or other such equipment and their places, from time to time
           and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central
           Supervisory Board; and
      (vi) Rule 3(3)(1)(b) of the PNDT Rules (as it stands after the
           amendment with effect from 9th January, 2014) is ultra vires        F
           the PNDT Act to the extent it requires a person desirous of
           setting up a Genetic Clinic / Ultrasound Clinic / Imaging
           Centre to undergo six months training imparted in the manner
           prescribed in the Six Months Training Rules.”
       8. Prima facie, the High Court has erred in its finding that there      G
is an absence of statutory power. Sub-section 1 of Section 32 of the
PCPNDT Act confers rule making power upon Central Government for
“carrying out the provisions of the Act”. Illustratively, sub Section 2 of
Section 32 stipulates that the rules may provide for:

                                                                               H
658            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A           “(i) the minimum qualifications for persons employed at a
            registered Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or
            Genetic Clinic under clause (1) of section 3.”
            The above provision refers to minimum qualifications required of
      persons employed at registered genetic counselling centres, genetic
B     laboratories or genetic clinicsunder Section 3(2). Hence, it would be
      necessary to understand the import of Section 3 which reads thus:
            “3. Regulation of Genetic Counselling Centres, Genetic
            Laboratories and Genetic Clinics.-

C           On and from the commencement of this Act,—
            (1) no Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or
            Genetic Clinic unless registered under this Act, shall conduct or
            associate with, or help in, conducting activities relating to
            pre-natal diagnostic techniques;
D
            (2) no Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or
            Genetic Clinic shall employ or cause to be employed any person
            who does not possess the prescribed qualifications;
            (3) no medical geneticist, gynaecologist, paediatrician, registered
            medical practitioner or any other person shall conduct or cause to
E
            be conducted or aid in conducting by himself or through any other
            person, any pre-natal diagnostic techniques at a place other than
            a place registered under this Act.”
            The expression ‘genetic counselling centre’ has been defined in
F     Section 2(c) as follows:
            “(c) “Genetic Counselling Centre” means an institute, hospital,
            nursing home or any place, by whatever name called, which
            provides for genetic counselling to patients”
            The expression ‘genetic laboratory’ is defined in Section 2(e) as
G     follows:
            (e) “Genetic Laboratory” means a laboratory and includes a place
            where facilities are provided for conducting analysis or tests of
            samples received from Genetic Clinic for pre-natal diagnostic test”

H
UNION OF INDIA v. INDIAN RADIOLOGICAL AND IMAGING                            659
               ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

      The expression ‘genetic clinic’ is defined in Section 2(d) as          A
follows:
      “(d) “Genetic Clinic” means a clinic, institute, hospital, nursing
      home or any place, by whatever name called, which is used for
      conducting pre-natal diagnostic procedures”
                                                                             B
       Under Section 2(d), ‘genetic clinic’ is defined with reference to
the place which is used for conducting pre-natal diagnostic procedures.
‘Genetic laboratory’ in Section 2(e) includes a place where facilities are
provided for conducting analysis or tests of samples received from a
genetic clinic for a pre-natal diagnostic test.
      The expression ‘pre-natal diagnostic procedures’ is defined in         C
Section 2(i) as follows:
      “(i) “pre-natal diagnostic procedures” means all gynaecological
      or obstetrical or medical procedures such as ultrasonography
      foetoscopy, taking or removing samples of amniotic fluid, chorionic
      villi, blood or any tissue of a pregnant woman for being sent to a     D
      Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic for conducting pre-natal
      diagnostic test”
       Both Sections 2(i) and Section 2(k) contain a specific reference
to ultrasonography. The expression ‘sonologist or imaging specialist’ is
defined in Section 2(p) as follows:                                          E
      “(p) sonologist or imaging specialist” means a person who
      possesses any one of the medical qualifications recognised under
      the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (105 of 1956) or who
      possesses a post-graduate qualification in ultrasonography or
      imaging techniques or radiology”                                       F
Section 4 provides thus:
      “4. Regulation of pre-natal diagnostic techniques.- On and from
      the commencement of this Act,—
       (1) no place including a registered Genetic Counselling Centre or     G
      Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic shall be used or caused to
      be used by any person for conducting pre-natal diagnostic
      techniques except for the purposes specified in clause (2) and
      after satisfying any of the conditions specified in clause (3);

                                                                             H
660            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A            (2) no pre-natal diagnostic techniques shall be conducted except
      for the purposes of detection of any of the following abnormalities,
      namely:—
                 (i) chromosomal abnormalities;
                 (ii) genetic metabolic diseases;
B                (iii) haemoglobinopathies;
                 (iv) sex-linked genetic diseases;
                 (v) congenital anomalies;
                 (vi) any other abnormalities or diseases as may be specified
                 by the Central Supervisory Board;
C            [(3) no pre-natal diagnostic techniques shall be used or conducted
             unless the person qualified to do so is satisfied that any of the
             following conditions are fulfilled, namely:—
               (i) age of the pregnant woman is above thirty-five years;
               (ii) the pregnant woman has undergone two or more
D              spontaneous abortions or foetal loss;
               (iii) the pregnant woman had been exposed to potentially
               teratogenic agents such as drugs, radiation, infection or
               chemicals;
               (iv) the pregnant woman or her spouse has a family history of
E              mental retardation or physical deformities such as, spasticity
               or any other genetic disease;
               (v) any other condition as may be specified by the Central
               Supervisory Board;
            Provided that the person conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant
F           woman shall keep complete record thereof in the clinic in such
            manner, as may be prescribed, and any deficiency or inaccuracy
            found therein shall amount to contravention of the provisions of
            section 5 or section 6 unless contrary is proved by the person
            conducting such ultrasonography;

G           (4) no person including a relative or husband of the pregnant woman
            shall seek or encourage the conduct of any pre-natal diagnostic
            techniques on her except for the purpose specified in clause (2).
            (5) no person including a relative or husband of a woman shall
            seek or encourage the conduct of any sex-selection technique on
            her or him or both.]”
H
UNION OF INDIA v. INDIAN RADIOLOGICAL AND IMAGING                              661
               ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

       Section 4(2) specifies exceptional situations in which a pre-natal      A
diagnostic test may be conducted to detect certain specified
abnormalities. Section 4(3) provides that no pre-natal diagnostic test shall
be used or conducted unless the person qualified to do so, is satisfied for
reasons to be recorded in writing that specific conditions (which have
been laid down) are fulfilled. Section 5(2) contains a prohibition on the
                                                                               B
disclosure to a pregnant woman or to a relative of the sex of the foetus.
Section 6 contains a prohibition on the determination of sex and on sex
selection.
       9. Prima facie,these provisions indicate that Parliament has
conferred upon the Central government rule making authority to specify
minimum qualification for persons to be employed at genetic counselling        C
centres, laboratories and clinics. Specification of qualifications, in our
view,should be read in a purposive sense which will fulfil the object of
the law. Even on a plain and natural construction of the words used by
Parliament, specification of qualifications must necessarily comprehend
the power to prescribe training. The rationale for this is that the training   D
would sensitize the person concernedto the salutary object and purpose
of the legislation which has been enacted by Parliament to deal with a
serious social evil and be conscious of the misuse of sex-selection tests.
Pre-natal diagnostic procedures are susceptible to grave misuse.
       10. Parliament which has the unquestioned authority and                 E
legislative competence to frame the law considered it necessary to
empower the Central government to frame rules to govern the
qualifications of persons employed in genetic counselling centres,
laboratories and clinics. The wisdom of the legislature in adopting the
policy cannot be substituted by the court in the exercise of the power of
judicial review.Prima facie the judgment of the Delhi High Court has           F
trenched upon an area of legislative policy. Judicial review cannot
extend to reappreciating the efficacy of a legislative policy adopted in a
law which has been enacted by the competent legislature. Both the
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the PCPNDT Act are enacted by
Parliament. Parliament has the legislative competence to do so. The            G
Training Rules 2014 were made by the Central Government in exercise
of the power conferred by Parliament. Prima facie, the rules are
neither ultra vires the parent legislation nor do they suffer from
manifest arbitrariness.

                                                                               H
662             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A            11. For the reasons that we have indicated, we are of the view
      that the judgment of the Delhi High Court needs to be stayed during the
      pendency of these proceedings. The judgment of the High Court squarely
      impinges upon the directions issued by this Court in Voluntary Health
      Association of Punjab. We direct in consequence that the judgment of
      this Court in Voluntary Health Association of Punjab shall be strictly
B
      enforced by all states and union territories untrammelled by any order of
      any High Court or any other court.
             12. Pending final disposal, there shall be a stay of the operation of
      the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court dated 17 February 2016.
      The interlocutory applications are disposed of accordingly.
C

      Kalpana K. Tripathy                                          IAs disposed of.



D




E




F




G




H