Radiological & Imaging Association v. Union of India
(2011) 5 AIR Bom R 731
In the High Court of Bombay
W.P. 797/ 2011
Before Chief Justice Mohit S. Shah and Justice R.P. Sondurbaldota
Decided on August 26, 2011

Relevancy of the case: Writ petition challenging methods which infringe the confidentiality and privacy of pregnant women

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 72, 72A)
• The Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (Rule 9(6), 9(7), 11(1), 12)
• The Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (Section 4(1), 4(2), 5, 6, 23, 17(4), 17A, 29, 30, 32)
• The Constitution of India, 1950 (Article 226)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• A circular of Collector and District Magistrate, Kolhapur regarding the online submission of form ‘F’ under the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 was challenged by the petitioner which is an association that promotes the study and practice of ultrasound, MRI and other imaging modalities.
• The petitioner-association also challenged the installation of SIOB (silent observer) under the pretext that the same violated the right to privacy of a patient.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the use of SIOB would violate the patient’s privacy as they have not consented to the use of this information by any other party except the doctors/radiologists conducting the sonography. Hence, breach of this confidentiality will result in punishment under Section 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• The respondent’s counsel argued that due to the excess manpower which is required in processing form ‘F’ manually and problems of under-reporting and false reporting, the online mode of filling the form was agreed upon by all authorities. The learned counsel also clarified that the SIOB does not transmit information through the internet and hence remote access to the information is not possible. Further, according to the rules and sections, as clinics are required to provide appropriate information to the authorities and as online information would not be available in the public domain, the privacy of the client would be protected.

Opinion of the Bench

• The Court was of the view that there are many benefits of online submission of form ‘F’ such as timely and complete submissions, effective analysis of the data, etc.
• They also took into consideration that even before the introduction of online submission of form ‘F’, the clinics were obligated to keep all records of ultra-sonography for atleast 2 years.
• The Court did not find any merit in the contentions placed under Section 72 and 72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as it was clarified that SIOB is not connected to the internet.
• The Court was also of the belief that there would be no violation of the privacy of clients as the information would not be accessible to any third party except the appropriate authority only when such information is required to be accessed.
• It was clarified that access of such information would not be given to any officer below the rank of Deputy Collector or below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in case of police department and that the doctor/radiologist who conducted the sonography would be present with the appropriate authority while accessing the information.

Final Decision

• Petition dismissed.