Introduction:

The Orissa High Court has clarified that the regulatory framework under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act and the Rules framed thereunder cannot be interpreted to impose an unwarranted restriction on a qualified Radiologist merely because he seeks to conduct ultrasonography at medical establishments situated in two different districts. In Jagabandhu Barik v. State of Odisha & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 14988 of 2026, Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray set aside an order preventing the petitioner from providing ultrasonography services at a private clinic in another district, despite his employer having issued a no-objection certificate permitting him to undertake such work beyond his official duty hours.

The case required the Court to interpret Rule 3(3) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, commonly known as the PCPNDT Rules. The provision regulates the registration of medical practitioners qualified to conduct ultrasonography at genetic clinics, ultrasound clinics and imaging centres. The dispute centred on the meaning of the expression “within a district” and whether those words should be understood as creating an absolute prohibition against a qualified doctor working at registered medical establishments located in two separate districts.

The petitioner was a qualified Radiologist serving as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Radio-Diagnosis at the Veer Surendra Sai Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Burla, Sambalpur. Alongside his permanent employment, he sought permission to render professional services at a private medical establishment, Rajaram Health Care, situated at Attabira in Bargarh district.

Significantly, the Superintendent of VIMSAR had issued a no-objection certificate authorising the petitioner to attend the private hospital beyond his official duty hours. There was therefore no objection from his principal employer to the petitioner undertaking professional work outside his institutional working hours.

Despite this, the Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer, Bargarh, acting under Rule 3(3) of the PCPNDT Rules, passed an order preventing the petitioner from working at the private clinic. The authorities interpreted the rule to mean that although a qualified medical practitioner could be associated with up to two clinics or centres within a district, the rule did not permit the practitioner to conduct ultrasonography at establishments situated in two different districts.

The petitioner challenged the prohibition before the High Court, contending that such an interpretation imposed a restriction that was not found in the language or purpose of the PCPNDT Act and Rules. He argued that the competent authority at his permanent place of employment had already permitted him to work outside his official hours and that the District Advisory Committee or authorities at Bargarh had no legal basis to prevent him from rendering professional services at the private clinic.

The State defended the order by advancing a strict interpretation of Rule 3(3). According to the State, the petitioner was already serving in Sambalpur district and could not simultaneously be permitted to conduct ultrasonography at a clinic in Bargarh district. It was argued that the rule specifically permitted registration with a maximum of two clinics or centres “within a district,” and therefore the benefit of the provision could not be extended across district boundaries.

The High Court rejected this restrictive construction. Justice Routray held that the plain meaning of Rule 3(3), read in the context of the object of the PCPNDT legislation, did not prohibit a qualified Radiologist from conducting ultrasonography at two different clinics situated in two different districts.

The decision is important because it distinguishes between a regulatory provision designed to ensure supervision and accountability and an absolute prohibition on professional practice. The Court found that the words “within a district” were connected with the administrative and disciplinary supervision exercised through the District Advisory Committee. They could not be transformed into a statutory bar preventing a qualified medical practitioner from practising beyond the geographical limits of one district.

The judgment also recognises a practical aspect of medical services. The two workplaces were situated only around 25 kilometres apart. The petitioner had the permission of his employer to work beyond official duty hours, and there was no allegation that his proposed private practice would interfere with his government responsibilities or violate any other statutory requirement.

Against this background, the Court concluded that the Bargarh authorities had wrongly invoked Rule 3(3) to reject the petitioner’s request. The prohibition order was accordingly set aside, and the petitioner was permitted to conduct ultrasonography at the private clinic.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner, represented by Advocate P.S. Mohanty, submitted that he was a duly qualified Radiologist and was professionally competent to conduct ultrasonography in accordance with the PCPNDT Act and Rules. He was serving as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Radio-Diagnosis at VIMSAR, Burla, and there was no dispute regarding his qualifications or expertise.

The petitioner explained that he wished to provide professional services at Rajaram Health Care, Attabira, a private medical establishment situated in Bargarh district. His proposed work at the private clinic was not intended to interfere with his regular duties. On the contrary, the Superintendent of VIMSAR had specifically issued a no-objection certificate permitting him to attend the private hospital after the completion of his official working hours.

The petitioner argued that once his competent superior authority had no objection to his professional engagement outside official hours, there was no independent justification for the Bargarh authorities to prohibit him from conducting ultrasonography at the private establishment.

His principal legal challenge was directed against the interpretation placed upon Rule 3(3) of the PCPNDT Rules. The petitioner contended that the provision does not expressly state that a medical practitioner is prohibited from conducting ultrasonography at clinics situated in different districts. The rule refers to registration with a maximum of two clinics or centres within a district, but, according to the petitioner, this wording could not be read as imposing a blanket geographical restriction on a qualified practitioner.

The petitioner submitted that such a restrictive interpretation would go beyond the language of the Rules and would not advance the legislative purpose of the PCPNDT Act. The legislation is intended to regulate the use of pre-natal diagnostic techniques and prevent their misuse for sex selection. It is not intended to arbitrarily restrict legitimate medical practice by qualified Radiologists.

The petitioner also emphasised the practical circumstances of the case. The private clinic at Attabira was situated only about 25 kilometres from his workplace at VIMSAR, Burla. Therefore, there was no practical difficulty in travelling between the two establishments, particularly when the private work was to be performed beyond his official duty hours.

The State, represented by Additional Government Advocate S.K. Jee, defended the decision of the authorities. It submitted that the petitioner was already working as an Assistant Professor at VIMSAR in Sambalpur district and therefore could not be permitted to perform ultrasonography at a clinic in Bargarh district.

The State relied heavily upon the wording of Rule 3(3). It contended that the rule permits a qualified medical practitioner to be registered with a maximum of two genetic clinics, ultrasound clinics or imaging centres within a district. According to the State, the express reference to a district meant that the Rules contemplated registration and practice only within the territorial jurisdiction of that particular district.

The State therefore argued that while the petitioner might be permitted to work at two establishments within one district, the Rules did not authorise him to divide his practice between two separate districts. In the State’s view, permitting such an arrangement would go beyond the regulatory structure created under the PCPNDT Rules.

The State’s argument was rooted in the need for effective monitoring and supervision of diagnostic centres and medical practitioners. The PCPNDT legislation creates a regulatory mechanism intended to prevent sex selection and misuse of diagnostic technology. From this perspective, the State suggested that allowing practitioners to operate across different districts could create difficulties in maintaining administrative control.

The dispute thus turned on two competing approaches to Rule 3(3). The petitioner urged a purposive interpretation, arguing that the rule regulates registration and supervision but does not prohibit cross-district professional practice. The State advanced a restrictive territorial interpretation, maintaining that the phrase “within a district” effectively confined the practitioner to establishments located in the same district.

The High Court was therefore required to determine not only what the words of Rule 3(3) literally stated, but also what role those words played within the broader statutory scheme of the PCPNDT Act and Rules.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray allowed the writ petition and set aside the prohibition imposed by the Bargarh authorities. The Court held that Rule 3(3) of the PCPNDT Rules could not be interpreted as creating an absolute bar against a qualified Radiologist conducting ultrasonography at two clinics located in two different districts.

The Court began by considering the object of the PCPNDT Act and the Rules. The legislation is a social welfare and regulatory measure aimed at prohibiting sex selection and preventing the misuse of pre-conception and pre-natal diagnostic techniques for determining the sex of a foetus. Its purpose is to regulate the use of medical technology and ensure accountability in diagnostic practice.

Justice Routray held that an interpretation of Rule 3(3) must remain consistent with this legislative objective. The provision cannot be given a meaning that imposes a restriction on professional practice unrelated to the purpose of preventing sex selection or ensuring effective regulatory supervision.

The Court found that Rule 3(3) does not expressly prohibit a qualified medical practitioner from working at clinics situated in different districts. The State’s argument required the Court to read such a prohibition into the rule, even though the language did not specifically impose it.

According to the High Court, the expression “within a district” has to be understood in its administrative context. Each district has a District Advisory Committee responsible for monitoring and supervising matters falling within the regulatory framework of the PCPNDT Act. The territorial reference in Rule 3(3) is connected with the disciplinary and administrative structure through which practitioners and centres are regulated.

The Court explained that because every district has its own District Advisory Committee, one committee cannot ordinarily exercise administrative authority over matters falling within the territorial jurisdiction of another district. The reference to registration within a district therefore facilitates supervision and accountability under the appropriate District Advisory Committee.

However, this administrative arrangement does not mean that a qualified Radiologist loses the right to provide medical services merely because another clinic is situated across a district boundary. The Court held that such an interpretation would not be consistent with either the plain language of the Rules or the purpose of the legislation.

The Court’s reasoning is particularly important because it separates regulation from prohibition. A statute may regulate where and how a professional service is provided without necessarily imposing a complete geographical restriction on the professional concerned. The PCPNDT framework seeks strict compliance and monitoring, but strict regulation does not automatically mean that qualified practitioners must be confined to one district.

The Court also accepted the petitioner’s contention regarding the no-objection certificate issued by his employer. The Superintendent of VIMSAR had expressly permitted the petitioner to work at the private clinic beyond his official duty hours. Therefore, there was no objection from the institution where the petitioner was permanently employed.

The High Court held that, in these circumstances, the Bargarh authorities could not independently debar the petitioner merely by invoking Rule 3(3) in a manner not supported by the provision.

The Court also considered the practical circumstances of the case. The distance between VIMSAR, Burla, and the private clinic at Attabira was approximately 25 kilometres. This fact further weakened the suggestion that the petitioner was seeking to undertake an arrangement that was impractical or inconsistent with his regular responsibilities.

There was also no allegation before the Court that the petitioner had neglected his official duties, practised during his government working hours or violated any condition of his employment. On the contrary, his employer had formally expressed no objection to his private professional engagement beyond duty hours.

The Court further observed that the petitioner was admittedly a qualified Radiologist. In the absence of any express statutory prohibition or evidence of misuse, there was no justification for preventing him from conducting ultrasonography at the private clinic.

Justice Routray specifically found that the Bargarh authorities had applied Rule 3(3) without proper justification. The Court held that the plain interpretation of the rule, when read alongside the object of the PCPNDT Act, did not support the conclusion that a doctor could be debarred from working in two different districts.

The judgment also illustrates a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation: restrictions affecting a person’s professional activity should not ordinarily be created by implication when the statutory language does not clearly impose them. Courts may interpret regulatory provisions purposively, but they cannot add prohibitions that the legislature has not enacted.

The State’s interpretation would have produced an unusually restrictive result. A doctor could, according to that approach, potentially work at two clinics within the boundaries of one district but could not work at two clinics separated by a district boundary, even where the establishments were geographically close and the professional engagement did not affect official duties. The High Court found no basis for such a rigid distinction in the language or purpose of the Rules.

The Court therefore concluded that permitting the petitioner to conduct ultrasonography at the clinic in Bargarh would not contradict the PCPNDT Act, the Rules or the legislative intention behind them.

The impugned prohibition order was consequently quashed. The petitioner was permitted to provide ultrasonography services at Rajaram Health Care, Attabira, subject, naturally, to compliance with the regulatory requirements governing such medical practice.

The decision has wider significance for the interpretation of Rule 3(3) of the PCPNDT Rules. It makes clear that the phrase “within a district” should not automatically be treated as a territorial prohibition against qualified practitioners working in more than one district.

At the same time, the ruling does not dilute the safeguards created under the PCPNDT Act. Medical practitioners and diagnostic centres remain subject to the registration, record-keeping, monitoring and other requirements prescribed under the law. The judgment merely prevents an administrative authority from relying on Rule 3(3) to impose a restriction that the Court found unsupported by the statutory scheme.

The decision therefore strikes a balance between the need for strict enforcement of a law designed to prevent sex selection and the need to avoid unnecessary restrictions on legitimate medical practice. The objective of preventing misuse of diagnostic technology remains paramount, but regulatory provisions must still be interpreted according to their actual language and purpose.

In allowing the writ petition, the Orissa High Court ultimately reaffirmed that administrative authorities cannot enlarge a statutory restriction through an overly technical interpretation. Where a medical practitioner is qualified, the employer has granted permission for private work beyond official hours and the law does not expressly prohibit practice across district boundaries, the authority cannot deny permission merely because it prefers a narrower construction of the Rules.

The judgment thus protects professional autonomy while preserving the regulatory objectives of the PCPNDT framework. Its central message is clear: the purpose of the law is to prevent sex selection and regulate diagnostic practices, not to create geographical barriers to legitimate professional work that find no clear basis in the statute or the Rules.