"Supreme"Safeguard for Doctors under the PCPNDT Act: Hon. Apex Court Restricts Police Investigation

Case Details : State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Dr. Brij Pal Singh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 2938 of 2025, 2026 INSC 901, decided on 20 August 2026

Before : Hon. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon. Justice N Kotiswar Singh

Facts which led to the Hon. Supreme Court reference

The case arose from an FIR registered against one Dr. Brij Pal Singh and others alleging offences under the PCPNDT Act as well as provisions of the IPC. The proceedings originated from information received by the District Magistrate, who was the Appropriate Authority. A decoy operation was conducted and a raid followed at the hospital. A police FIR was thereafter registered and investigation was undertaken.

The controversy ultimately reached the Supreme Court because different High Courts had taken conflicting views concerning:

whether the police could register an FIR for a PCPNDT offence merely because Section 27 declares such offences to be cognizable and non-bailable;
whether the police could independently investigate a PCPNDT offence; and
whether a Magistrate could take cognizance of a PCPNDT offence on the basis of a police chargesheet.

The Supreme Court was therefore called upon to settle the conflict.

The three questions before the Supreme Court

The reference essentially required the Court to determine:

Question 1

Whether the police could register an FIR for a PCPNDT offence merely because the offence is classified as cognizable and non-bailable under Section 27?

Question 2

Whether the police could investigate an offence under the PCPNDT Act, and who was legally competent to investigate?

Question 3

Whether a Magistrate could take cognizance of a PCPNDT offence on the basis of a police chargesheet?

The answers given by the Supreme Court are extremely important for medical practitioners.

The Supreme Court's answer — police are not the investigating authority

The Supreme Court answered the first question in the negative.

The Court held that Sections 27 and 28, when read together with the other provisions of the Act, indicate that the police are not intended to be the investigators for offences under the PCPNDT Act.

The Court specifically emphasised the specialised nature of the legislation and the requirement of medical and technical expertise in dealing with such cases.

This is perhaps the most important part of the judgment from the perspective of doctors.

The Court recognised that PCPNDT proceedings are not ordinary criminal proceedings. They involve:

medical records;
ultrasound and other diagnostic technology;
statutory registers and forms;
medical terminology;
technical interpretation of prenatal diagnostic procedures;
assessment of whether a particular medical procedure falls within the prohibitions of the Act; and
evaluation of highly specialised medical and technical material.

The Supreme Court therefore rejected the proposition that the mere word“cognizable” in Section 27 could automatically give the ordinary police machinery unrestricted authority to investigate PCPNDT offences.

Section 27 cannot be read in isolation

Section 27 provides:

“Every offence under this Act shall be cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable.”

At first sight, the word “cognizable” may suggest that the police can automatically register an FIR and investigate.

However, the Supreme Court held that Section 27 cannot be read in isolation.

It has to be harmoniously read with:

Section 17 — Appropriate Authority;
Section 17A — powers of Appropriate Authority;
Section 28 — cognizance of offences;
Section 30 — search and seizure; and
Rule 18A(3)(iv) of the PCPNDT Rules.

The Court held that the specialised procedure created by the PCPNDT legislation must prevail over the general criminal procedure wherever the two come into conflict.

This principle is extremely important because it prevents the general criminal law from being used to circumvent the safeguards and specialised procedure specifically created by Parliament.

Who is responsible for investigation?

The answer is clear:

The Appropriate Authority.

Section 17(4) specifically entrusts the Appropriate Authority with the function of:

investigating complaints regarding breach of the Act;
taking immediate action;
taking appropriate legal action; and
initiating independent investigations regarding sex-selection offences.

The Act therefore does not merely create the Appropriate Authority as an administrative licensing authority. It gives it a specialised investigative function.

The Supreme Court relied heavily upon this statutory scheme.

It held that the Appropriate Authority is the authority which must investigate the PCPNDT component of the alleged offence.

Rule 18A gives additional protection

Rule 18A(3)(iv) of the PCPNDT Rules is particularly important.

It requires the Appropriate Authorities, “as far as possible,” not to involve police for investigating cases under the Act, because PCPNDT cases are tried as complaint cases.

The Supreme Court held that the Rules have statutory force and that this provision cannot be treated as meaningless.

Thus, police involvement is not the normal rule.

It is the except.

Police assistance is different from police investigation

This distinction is critical.

The judgment does not say that the police can never have any involvement whatsoever.

Section 30 allows the Appropriate Authority to obtain assistance when necessary.

Such assistance may include:

protection during a raid;
tracing a person;
preservation of a scene;
digital or forensic assistance;
maintaining law and order; or
other limited assistance genuinely required by the Appropriate Authority.

But the police cannot convert such assistance into an independent investigation of the PCPNDT offence.

In other words:

Police assistance is not same as police investigation.

The Supreme Court has drawn a firm legal boundary between the two.

The Appropriate Authority cannot surrender its statutory responsibility to the police

This is another important safeguard for doctors.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that an Appropriate Authority cannot simply ask the police to investigate the PCPNDT offence and then adopt the police investigation as its own.

The decision to:

entertain the complaint;
investigate;
exercise statutory powers;
examine medical and technical material; and
ultimately decide whether a statutory complaint should be instituted

remains with the competent Appropriate Authority.

Therefore, a PCPNDT investigation cannot lawfully become a police-led investigation merely because police assistance was requested.

The biggest protection: a police chargesheet cannot result in cognizance

The Supreme Court gave an emphatic answer to Question No. 3.

A Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a PCPNDT offence merely on the basis of a police chargesheet.

Section 28 creates a statutory embargo.

Cognizance can be taken only in the manner prescribed by Section 28 — principally upon a complaint by:

the Appropriate Authority;
an officer authorised by the Central or State Government or Appropriate Authority; or
a person who has complied with the statutory notice requirement under Section 28(1)(b).

Therefore, a police chargesheet cannot substitute the complaint contemplated by Section 28.

This is a jurisdictional safeguard, not merely a technical procedural requirement.

What happens if police nevertheless investigate and file a chargesheet?

The Supreme Court's answer is significant.

If the police independently investigate the PCPNDT offence and file a chargesheet, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the PCPNDT offence on that chargesheet.

The reason is straightforward:

Section 28 controls the manner in which the Court can take cognizance.

The Supreme Court observed that a police investigation culminating in a chargesheet would otherwise lead to a legally anomalous situation because the Magistrate is statutorily prohibited from taking cognizance on that chargesheet.

For a doctor facing such proceedings, this becomes an important ground for challenging proceedings initiated exclusively through a police report.

An important distinction — independent offences under BNS/IPC

Doctors should, however, be careful not to misunderstand the judgment.

The Supreme Court has not granted blanket immunity from police investigation.

If the same factual transaction discloses an independent offence under the BNS/IPC or another general penal law, the police can investigate that independent offence.

The PCPNDT component, however, remains within the jurisdiction of the Appropriate Authority.

The Supreme Court's concurring judgment explains that one transaction can generate two distinct procedural tracks:

PCPNDT offence → Appropriate Authority

and

Independent BNS/IPC offence → Police

The two tracks do not merge merely because the facts overlap.

This distinction is extremely important in practical litigation.

The Supreme Court's practical directions

The concurring judgment gives particularly useful operational directions.

Situation 1 — Information discloses only a PCPNDT offence

If information received by a police station, on reasonable reading, discloses only a PCPNDT violation:

police should make the appropriate station/diary entry;
the information and material should be transmitted to the Appropriate Authority;
police should not independently investigate the PCPNDT offence.

Situation 2 — PCPNDT offence + independent BNS offence

If the same facts also disclose an independently constituted cognizable offence under the BNS:

police may investigate the BNS offence;
the PCPNDT component must be communicated to the Appropriate Authority;
police cannot use the overlap of facts or documents as a justification to investigate the PCPNDT component.

Situation 3 — Police discovers a PCPNDT violation during another investigation

If, during a lawful BNS investigation, the police discover material suggesting a PCPNDT violation:

police must notify the Appropriate Authority;
the material should be placed before the Appropriate Authority;
the Appropriate Authority decides whether to invoke its powers.

Police may continue their investigation only regarding the independent BNS offence.

Situation 4 — Appropriate Authority discovers a BNS offence

Conversely, if the Appropriate Authority discovers an independent BNS offence:

it should communicate the information to the police;
the police may independently deal with that offence;
but the PCPNDT investigation remains with the Appropriate Authority.

Why this judgment is particularly favourable to doctors

The judgment is significant because PCPNDT law has often been perceived by medical professionals as a regime where even procedural or documentation-related allegations can rapidly escalate into criminal proceedings.

The Supreme Court has now recognised the need for specialised medical and technical scrutiny.

The Court expressly referred to the need to protect doctors from harassment and intimidation while simultaneously enforcing the socially beneficial object of the PCPNDT legislation.

This is a crucial judicial recognition.

The judgment does not weaken the PCPNDT Act.

Rather, it says that the Act must be enforced in the manner prescribed by Parliament.

The judgment creates multifold shield :

For doctors, the judgment creates several layers of protection.

First shield — Police cannot ordinarily investigate the PCPNDT offence

A police officer cannot simply treat Section 27's word “cognizable” as an unrestricted licence to investigate the PCPNDT offence.

Second shield — Specialised authority must conduct the investigation

The investigation must ordinarily be undertaken by the Appropriate Authority.

Third shield — Police assistance must remain supplementary

If police assistance is required, it must remain subordinate to the Appropriate Authority's investigation.

Fourth shield — Chargesheet alone is insufficient

A police chargesheet cannot itself confer jurisdiction upon the Magistrate to take cognizance of the PCPNDT offence.

Fifth shield — Competence of complainant matters

The complaint must emanate from an authority/person recognised by Section 28.

The statutory requirement concerning who can initiate prosecution therefore assumes great importance.

Doctors can challenge an improperly instituted PCPNDT prosecution

The judgment provides a strong foundation for examining the jurisdictional validity of PCPNDT proceedings.

In an appropriate case, the defence should examine:

Who initiated the proceedings?
Was that person actually the notified Appropriate Authority?
If not, was the person validly authorised?
Was there a proper Section 28 complaint?
Was the investigation conducted by the Appropriate Authority?
Was the police merely assisting or actually conducting the investigation?
Was a police FIR registered solely for the PCPNDT offence?
Was the police investigation independent or conducted at the request and supervision of the Appropriate Authority?
Was the chargesheet filed by the police being treated as the basis for cognizance?
Does the case involve an independent BNS offence distinct from the PCPNDT allegation?

These questions can become decisive in a challenge to the proceedings.

The question of the authorised officer is also important

The PCPNDT Act carefully specifies who can initiate proceedings.

Section 28 does not permit any government officer to automatically institute prosecution merely because that officer happens to be associated with the health administration.

The file records the principle that an officer who is neither the Appropriate Authority nor a validly authorised delegate cannot institute a legally competent complaint merely on the basis of an internal administrative nomination.

Consequently, in a PCPNDT prosecution, the defence should not mechanically accept the description “authorised officer”.

The actual statutory source of authority should be examined.

Why “cognizable” does not mean “police can do everything”

This is perhaps the central doctrinal lesson of the judgment.

The word “cognizable” has significance, but it cannot be used to destroy the rest of the statutory scheme.

The Court essentially adopted a harmonious construction:

Section 27

→ declares the seriousness and classification of the offence.

Section 17

→ assigns investigative responsibility to the Appropriate Authority.

Section 17A

→ gives the Appropriate Authority specific statutory powers.

Section 28

→ restricts cognizance to the prescribed complaint mechanism.

Section 30

→ gives the Appropriate Authority search and seizure powers, with assistance where necessary.

Rule 18A

→ directs that police involvement in investigation should be avoided as far as possible.

Read together, these provisions establish a specialised regulatory-criminal enforcement mechanism.

The judgment does not dilute the PCPNDT Act :

This is also very important and must be understood by Doctors.

It is important that doctors do not interpret this judgment as permitting non-compliance with PCPNDT requirements.

The Supreme Court has not relaxed:

registration requirements;
record-maintenance requirements;
statutory forms;
prohibition on sex selection;
prohibition on communication of foetal sex;
requirements applicable to diagnostic centres;
inspection and seizure powers of the Appropriate Authority; or
criminal liability for genuine violations.

The judgment concerns who investigates and how prosecution is initiated, rather than granting immunity for violations.

Thus, the proper message to the medical profession is:

Strict compliance with PCPNDT law remains essential, but enforcement must also remain within the four corners of the statute.

Practical implications for doctors, radiologists and diagnostic centres

In the light of this judgment, medical practitioners facing a PCPNDT proceeding should immediately preserve:

registration certificate;
ultrasound machine details;
statutory registers;
Form F records;
referral records;
patient records;
consent documentation;
invoices and receipts;
maintenance/calibration records;
correspondence with the Appropriate Authority;
inspection reports;
seizure memos/panchanamas;
notices issued by the authorities;
decoy-operation documentation, where applicable; and
copies of FIR, chargesheet and complaint.

The precise procedural route by which the case was initiated should also be examined.

The question is no longer merely:

“What does the prosecution allege?”

The equally important question is:

“Was the prosecution initiated and investigated by the legally competent authority in the legally prescribed manner?”

A powerful defence point: jurisdiction comes before merits

The significance of this judgment goes beyond the factual defence of a particular doctor.

Before the Court examines whether a doctor actually violated the PCPNDT Act, the prosecution must first cross the threshold of statutory competence and jurisdiction.

If:

the wrong authority investigated;
the police independently investigated a PCPNDT offence;
the police chargesheet is treated as the basis of cognizance; or
an unauthorised person instituted the complaint,

the defence may have a substantial jurisdictional objection.

This is especially important because a medical professional should not be compelled to undergo a full criminal trial through a procedure which Parliament has not authorised.

The broader constitutional significance

The judgment also reinforces an important principle of criminal jurisprudence:

A socially beneficial statute must be enforced strictly according to law.

The object of preventing sex selection and female foeticide is unquestionably compelling.

But the seriousness of the object does not permit investigative agencies to ignore statutory limitations.

The Supreme Court has effectively said that strong enforcement and lawful enforcement are not contradictory concepts.

Indeed, proper procedure strengthens the legitimacy of enforcement.

A message to the medical profession

For doctors, the judgment should not be viewed merely as another technical ruling concerning FIRs.

It represents an important judicial recognition that medical professionals should not be subjected to ordinary police investigation in a specialised medical regulatory offence when Parliament has created a specialised authority for that purpose.

The Supreme Court has recognised that PCPNDT matters require sensitivity and medical/technical know-how and has consequently placed the Appropriate Authority at the centre of the investigative process.

At the same time, doctors must continue to maintain meticulous compliance with PCPNDT requirements.

The protection is against unlawful procedure, not against lawful prosecution for a genuine offence.

The ratio of this judgement may be put in one sentence as :

The ratio of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Brij Pal Singh, 2026 INSC 901 may be stated succinctly:

"For offences under the PCPNDT Act, the Appropriate Authority is the principal and competent investigating authority; the police may provide only supplemental assistance when required, and a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a PCPNDT offence merely on the basis of a police chargesheet."

The Supreme Court's final answers to all three questions are unequivocal.

Conclusion :

PCPNDT Act has been the nightmare for medicos at times.

The judgment is particularly significant for doctors, radiologists, sonologists, gynaecologists, hospitals, diagnostic centres and other medical professionals because PCPNDT proceedings can have extremely serious consequences even at the stage of investigation. An FIR, police raid, arrest, seizure of equipment and registration of criminal proceedings can have a devastating impact upon a medical practitioner's professional reputation and livelihood.

The Supreme Court has now clarified that the specialised statutory machinery under the PCPNDT Act cannot simply be bypassed by invoking the general powers of the police.

Where a doctor is accused under the PCPNDT Act, the defence must therefore examine not only the allegations on merits but also the source of the complaint, competence of the investigating authority, legality of police involvement, validity of the Section 28 complaint and the basis upon which the Magistrate assumed jurisdiction.

That procedural discipline is now backed by a clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court.

Thanks and regards

"Supreme" Safeguard for Doctors under the PCPNDT Act: Hon. Supreme Court Restricts Police Investigation. Adv. Rohit Erande ©