Appropriate Authority Holds Exclusive Investigation Powers, Court clarifies that while police may assist under direction, only Appropriate Authority can investigate and initiate prosecution under Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994
In a landmark judgment dated August 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brij Pal Singh, decisively clarified the investigative and prosecutorial framework under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act). The apex court resolved longstanding conflicting interpretations among various High Courts regarding the role of the police in offences committed under the PCPNDT Act.
The Court held that police investigation is impermissible for offences under the PCPNDT Act. Instead, investigation and cognizance of such offences are exclusive functions of the Appropriate Authority (AA), a specialized statutory body constituted by the Central or State Government under Section 17 of the Act. The police can only play a supplemental role when specifically requested and supervised by the AA, reinforcing the regulatory and technical nature of investigations under this special legislation.
The case arose from a challenge against a chargesheet filed by the police under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the PCPNDT Act in connection with allegations of illegal sex determination. The Allahabad High Court had issued a certificate of appeal to the Supreme Court to resolve ambiguities concerning whether police can register First Information Reports (FIRs), investigate, and whether courts can take cognizance on police charge sheets for offences under the PCPNDT Act.
The Supreme Court meticulously examined the provisions of the PCPNDT Act, particularly Sections 17, 27, 28, and 30, alongside Rule 18A(3)(iv) of the PCPNDT Rules, 1996. It was noted that although Section 27 classifies offences as cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable, Section 28 imposes a stringent bar on courts taking cognizance of offences except on a complaint filed by the Appropriate Authority or an authorised officer.
The Court observed that the investigative functions are explicitly vested in the Appropriate Authority under Section 17(4), which includes complaint investigation and legal action. Rule 18A(3)(iv) further mandates that police involvement in investigations should be avoided "as far as possible," indicating a clear legislative intent to keep the police out of the primary investigatory role to protect the specialized and sensitive nature of these offences.
While the police cannot independently investigate or register FIRs for PCPNDT offences, the Court acknowledged that offences under the IPC or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) arising from the same transaction remain within the police's jurisdiction. In such instances, police and the Appropriate Authority must coordinate, with each agency investigating within its statutory domain without encroachment.
The Supreme Court also clarified that the police cannot seek cognizance of PCPNDT offences on the basis of chargesheets filed by them, as this would be illegal under Section 28. Any cognizance must strictly arise from complaints filed by the Appropriate Authority or authorised persons.
This ruling aligns the PCPNDT Act's procedural mechanism with other special legislations such as the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, where specialized authorities hold exclusive investigative and prosecutorial powers, and police involvement is restricted or supplemental.
Senior counsels for the appellants and respondents presented extensive arguments on legislative intent, precedents, and statutory interpretation. The Court emphasized the primacy of the special law over general procedural laws like the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, to uphold the specialized enforcement regime.
The judgment thus firmly establishes the Appropriate Authority as the exclusive investigative agency for PCPNDT offences, with police intervention permitted only at the behest and under the supervision of the AA. Courts are barred from taking cognizance of police charge sheets in such cases, reinforcing the complaint case route mandated by the Act.
This verdict is expected to bring clarity and uniformity in the enforcement of the PCPNDT Act across India, ensuring sensitive handling of offences related to sex selection and prenatal diagnostic techniques, while safeguarding the rights and protections of medical practitioners and citizens under the statute.
Bottom Line:
Police investigation is impermissible for offences under the Act - Investigation and cognizance are exclusive functions of the Appropriate Authority (AA), with the police playing only a supplemental role under the supervision of the AA if requested.
Statutory provision(s):
Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 Sections 17(4), 17A, 27, 28, 30; Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 Rule 18A(3)(iv); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 4, 5; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 2(1)(h), 2(1)(y), 4, 5
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brij Pal Singh, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2964002
