Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court quashed a govt order and permitted a gynaecologist, accused under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, to operate a sonography machine. She was barred by the govt authority from using a sonography machine at a hospital solely because a criminal case under the PC-PNDT Act had been pending against her since 2018.The case involves Dr Twinkle Narsingani, a qualified gynaecologist with registrations in Maharashtra and Gujarat, who has been working in different hospitals since 2012. While she, along with another doctor, Jimit Chhatrala, was a visiting doctor at Shivalay Hospital in Shapar, Rajkot district, health authorities there inspected the hospital on May 24, 2018, and allegedly found irregularities in registers and paperwork required under the PC-PNDT Act. This led to the registration of a complaint against the hospital director, Dr Chhatrala and Dr Narsingani.In April 2022, the chief district health officer at Rajkot issued a communication debarring Dr Narsingani and Dr Chhatrala from using sonography machines while the case against them remained pending before a magisterial court in Rajkot.Both doctors challenged the restraining order before the HC, which quashed the order against Dr Chhatrala in 2022 and permitted him to operate sonography machines. However, Dr Narsingani’s petition had remained pending since then. Her advocate argued that she was only a visiting doctor at the hospital and that the complaint did not allege any sex determination test. Sonography, counsel said, was essential for gynaecological practice beyond foetal examination, and the restriction was imposed without notice, contrary to Section 20 of the Act. Moreover, the order was communicated only to the hospital, and not to the doctors.The state govt defended the order, saying the pending criminal prosecution justified restraining her from using the machine.After the hearing, Justice H M Prachchhak said, “The pendency of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner cannot be said to be a reason for cancelling the registration of the petitioner or not permitting the petitioner to use sonography machine.”The court further said that the authority’s action violated principles of natural justice because no notice or hearing was given before she was stopped from operating sonography machines. Setting aside the restraining order, the court remanded the matter to the competent authority for fresh consideration after giving Dr Narsingani an opportunity of hearing. It directed the authority to decide the matter afresh within eight weeks.
