Court emphasizes judicial restraint in public health policies, dismisses claims of radiation safety violations
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition filed by the Pragatisheel Radiographers Sangh Madhya Pradesh, challenging specific guidelines and circulars related to the National Tuberculosis Elimination Programme. The petitioner, an association of government radiographers, had sought judicial intervention against the installation and operational guidance issued for ultraportable handheld X-ray devices used in community-based TB screenings.
Presided over by Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, the court reiterated the importance of judicial restraint in matters concerning public health and national welfare policies. The petitioners argued that the guidelines relied solely on manufacturer claims of negligible radiation hazards without independent scientific validation, posing potential safety risks to radiographers. They further contended that the field conditions violated Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, due to inadequate protective measures such as Thermoluminescent Dosimeter (TLD) badges and full-body shielding.
The association also highlighted the stark disparity in radiation allowances provided to radiographers, comparing Madhya Pradesh's Rs. 50 monthly allowance to higher allowances in other states. They claimed this disparity was arbitrary and discriminatory, breaching the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The respondents defended the policy as a critical component of the TB Mukt Bharat Abhiyan aimed at eradicating tuberculosis by 2025. They emphasized the administrative nature of the orders, which are designed to implement national welfare policies at the grassroots level. The respondents argued that the petition lacked substantial evidence of legal or adverse effects warranting judicial interference.
Justice Pillai, in his judgment, underscored the limited scope of judicial review in executive policy matters, especially those related to public health initiatives. He noted that the administrative orders setting operational targets for X-ray screenings are essential tools to achieve the programme's objectives and cannot be deemed arbitrary due to demanding work schedules.
Regarding the alleged radiation hazards, the court found no manifest material on record establishing actionable prejudice. It ruled that subjective apprehensions or informal experiments by the petitioner cannot replace formal administrative findings. Similarly, the absence of statutory or service rule violations prevented the issuance of a writ of mandamus to alter the administrative orders.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, stating it lacked legal foundation to interfere with the national public health welfare policy and its implementation. The decision highlights the judiciary's role in balancing public health priorities with individual safety concerns while respecting the domain of executive authorities.
Bottom line:-
Public health policy - Judicial restraint emphasized in matters concerning public health and national welfare policies. Administrative orders implementing public health initiatives like TB Mukt Bharat Abhiyan cannot be interfered with unless statutory or service rules are violated.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226, Article 21, Article 14 of the Constitution of India; Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004
