Regarding the ability of an Additional Chief Medical Officer to bring complaints under the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act), the Allahabad High Court has rendered a landmark decision. The ruling by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Court clarifies the jurisdictional elements and relevant authorities under the PCPNDT Act, influencing the legal environment with regard to physicians and diagnostic facilities. This article explores the case’s salient features, the legal arguments put forth, and the Court’s reasoning for its ruling.
In the instance at hand, an application for the quashing of proceedings under the PCPNDT Act was submitted under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). In his application, Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi contested the court’s jurisdiction to consider a complaint brought forth by the Additional Chief Medical Officer, which claimed that a diagnostic center had violated the PCPNDT Act.
The PCPNDT Act’s statutory provisions, which provide that no Court may take cognizance of any offense under the Act unless on a complaint made by the appropriate authorities, formed the basis of the Court’s analysis. The District Magistrate was named by the State Government as the Appropriate Authority under the Act through a Notification. The primary issue on the Court’s agenda was whether the Additional Chief Medical Officer could file a complaint under the PCPNDT Act despite not being the appointed Appropriate Authority.
Representing the applicant, Advocate Ishan Baghel contended that the proceedings against the applicant were unlawful since the Additional Chief Medical Officer did not have the right to bring such a complaint. However, the State, represented by AGA-I Anurag Verma, argued that the applicant had the right to self-defense during the trial and that the complaint showed PCPNDT Act violations.
The relevant sections of the PCPNDT Act and the Notification designating the Appropriate Authority were among the many legal framework elements that the Court carefully reviewed. It noted that the District Magistrate—not the Additional Chief Medical Officer—was expressly named as the Appropriate Authority in the State Government’s Notification. Consequently, the Court found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the Additional Chief Medical Officer’s complaint because it was brought by an incompetent person.
The Court stressed in its ruling the value of following the law and the statutory framework set forth by the PCPNDT Act. It emphasized how important it is for complaints to be submitted by the proper authority assigned by the Act in order to guarantee the legitimacy and legality of court cases. The applicant’s victory in the Court’s decision highlights the importance of having the right legal standing to file lawsuits, particularly when dealing with delicate subjects like sex selection and diagnostic procedures.
The ruling rendered by the Allahabad High Court acts as a benchmark for matters concerning the PCPNDT Act and the medical officers’ jurisdiction in the future. It restates the fundamental idea that in order to preserve the integrity and impartiality of judicial proceedings, legal actions must be brought by qualified parties appointed by statute.
To summarize, the ruling in Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi v. The State of U.P. And Anr. by the Court provides clarification on the legal standing of an Additional Chief Medical Officer’s ability to bring complaints under the PCPNDT Act. It emphasizes how crucial it is to follow the law and how complaints must be submitted by authorized authorities in order to guarantee the legitimacy and legality of measures taken in accordance with the Act.
SOURCE:
THE PRINT
