Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. It must be pointed out that despite several adjournments, Respondent No.4 has not chosen to file any counter affidavit although it has been represented by Mr. V.K. Khurana, learned Advocate, whose submissions have been heard at length.

Submissions of Counsel

24. Mr. Siddhartha Singla, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that so-called sting operation did not contain any material which could constitute the basis of a complaint under the PNDT Act. Referring to the definition of "sex selection" under Section 2 (c) of the PNDT Act read with Section 6 (c) thereof, it is submitted that there was no pre-diagnostic test conducted during the sting operation which could attract those provisions. He pointed out that in the first place there has to be a conducting of the pre- natal diagnostic procedure under Section 2(k), followed by the taking of the written consent of the pregnant woman under Section 5, followed by the conducting of a pre-natal test under Section 6. If these three acts have been committed then the registration could be suspended or cancelled under Section 20 of the PNDT Act. He pointed out under Section 20 PNDT Act the suspension or cancellation of the registration can be done only after a show cause notice is issued followed by giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard under Section 20(2) followed by the advice of the „Advisory Committee‟ („AC‟). He pointed out that neither was there any hearing given to the Petitioner No.1 nor was the impugned order cancelling the registration issued on the advice of the AC. He, therefore, pointed out that the mandatory procedure under Section 20(2) of the PNDT Act has not been complied with. He submits that with the PNDT Act itself not being attracted to the facts of the present case, the entire proceedings were without jurisdiction. Mr. Singla submits that the mere non-provision of a separate ultrasonography chamber could not have invited the extreme penalty of cancellation of registration. The Petitioners could have been afforded an opportunity to set right such deficiency.

28. Appearing for Respondent No.4, Mr. V.K. Khurana learned counsel submitted that there were serious violations of the PNDT Act by the Petitioners. He too however fairly conceded that the contents of the CD prepared by Respondent No.4 during the sting operation conducted by it and the contents of the complaint given by it to Respondent No.1 did not attract any of the provisions of the PNDT Act. He sought to support the action of the Respondent No.1 stating that notwithstanding that the sting operation and the complaint of Respondent No.4 did not attract the violations of the PNDT Act, there were other violations as stated in the show cause notices issued on 9th February and 24th April 2009 by Respondent No.1 that justified the cancellation of the registration of Petitioner No.2. He submitted that as regards the action taken by the Delhi Police against Shri S.K. Sharma who is the Secretary of Respondent No.4 in relation to an alleged action of his extorting money by carrying out sting operations against doctors conducting PNDT tests, he submitted that this was under investigation and, therefore, should not prejudice this Court.

34. It is unfortunate that this „concession‟ has come more than a year and a half after the „sting‟ operation. This Court can only express its displeasure over the manner in which the Respondent No. 1 has proceeded to invoke the PNDT Act on the basis of such a complaint. The following observations of the Supreme Court R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court 2009 (8) SCC 106 advising caution in assessing sting operations of the media, are equally relevant in this context:

"328. We also find that like almost every other sphere of human activity in the country the electronic news media has a very broad spectrum ranging from very good to unspeakably bad.

35. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly pleaded that this Court should take note of the facts brought forth in CM No. 8776 of 2010. Enclosed with the said application is a news item dated 9th June 2009 published in the „Times of India‟ under the caption „DU graduate extorted cash from docs, held". The said news item proceeds to say that the accused "Subhash Kumar Sharma, who works for an NGO „Beti Bachao Aandolan‟ was apprehended following investigation into a complaint filed by Dr. Sunil Fakay, who runs a clinic in Ashok Vihar". The doctor in question alleged that Rs. 18 lakhs were being demanded from him from some people who had conducted a sting operation in his clinic and they threatened to ruin his career if he did not agree to pay. According to the Police a decoy customer had been sent to the doctor for PNDT. This decoy patient used spy cameras to record a video. Investigations led to the NGO and Sharma was arrested. According to the Police Shri S.K. Sharma told that "he has conducted four such sting operations in MP, UP and eight sting operations in Delhi in the last two years".