Legal Review and Analysis of Dr Naresh Kumar Garg vs State of Haryana & Ors 2026 INSC 176

Synopsis

This Supreme Court judgment addresses a challenge to criminal proceedings under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act). The appellant, a radiologist, sought quashing of a complaint and summoning order alleging violations including failure to maintain mandatory records (Form F) during an ultrasound conducted on a decoy patient. The core legal questions involved the validity of a search authorized by a single member of the District Appropriate Authority, the admissibility of evidence collected during an illegal search, and the effect of the appellant's prior discharge in a related police case. The Court upheld the proceedings, ruling that while the search was illegal per Ravinder Kumar, the evidence seized could still be relied upon, and the independent statutory complaint under the PCPNDT Act was maintainable.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 5915 of 2025 – Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 176

Court: Supreme Court of India

Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (Article 136)

Coram: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjwal Bhuyan (Author)

Nature of Bench: Division Bench (Two Judges)

Date of Judgment: February 23, 2026

2. Governing Legal Framework & Key Precedents

The judgment is a comprehensive exposition of the PCPNDT Act and related criminal procedure:

• Primary Legislation:
  Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act): A social welfare legislation aimed at prohibiting sex selection and regulating pre-natal diagnostic techniques.
  Section 4(3) proviso: Mandates maintenance of complete records; any deficiency/inaccuracy amounts to contravention of Sections 5 or 6.
  Section 5: Requires written consent and prohibits communication of foetus sex.
  Section 6: Completely prohibits determination of sex.
  Section 17: Deals with Appropriate Authority and Advisory Committee.
  Section 17A: Powers of Appropriate Authority, including issuing search warrants.
  Section 23: Offences and penalties.
  Section 28: Cognizance of offences – only on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority.
  Section 30: Power of search and seizure.
  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):
  Section 482: Saving power of High Court to quash proceedings.
  Section 468: Limitation for taking cognizance.

• Subordinate Legislation:
  Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (PCPNDT Rules):
  Rule 9: Mandatory maintenance and preservation of records in Form F.
  Rule 10: Conditions for conducting pre-natal diagnostic procedures, including declarations.
  Rule 18A: Code of conduct for Appropriate Authorities.

• Key Judicial Precedents:
  Ravinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana: Held that a decision to authorize a search under Section 30(1) must be a collective decision of the entire District Appropriate Authority, not just its Chairperson. An individual decision vitiates the search.
  Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) vs. Union of India: Held that the complete contents of Form F are mandatory. Non-maintenance of records is the "springboard" for the offence of foeticide and cannot be brushed aside as a mere clerical error.
  Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection (Investigation): Constitution Bench ruling that evidence obtained through an illegal search is still admissible in evidence, subject to the law of relevancy. The Indian Evidence Act does not exclude relevant evidence on the ground of illegal procurement.
  Radha Kishan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & R.M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra: Reiterated that illegality of search does not vitiate the seizure; courts may examine such evidence carefully but cannot discard it solely on grounds of illegal procurement.

3. Relevant Facts of the Case

• The Complaint: A complaint was received against one Dr. Abdul Kadir for running a sex determination racket.

• The Raid (17.09.2015): The Civil Surgeon (Chairperson of the District Appropriate Authority, Gurugram) issued a directive to constitute a team to conduct a raid. A decoy patient was used. Dr. Abdul Kadir allegedly took money and directed the decoy to Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg (appellant) at Vatika Medicare for ultrasound. The appellant conducted the ultrasound but did not sign Form F, obtain the patient's signature, or make any entry in the register.

• FIR and Discharge: An FIR was registered. Police filed a discharge application for the appellant on 28.10.2015, stating no sex determination was disclosed but noting discrepancies in record maintenance. The trial court discharged the appellant.

• Complaint under PCPNDT Act: The District Advisory Committee recommended filing a complaint. On 17.09.2018, the District Appropriate Authority authorized a complaint against the appellant and Dr. Abdul Kadir under various sections of the PCPNDT Act and Rules.

• Summoning and High Court: The trial court summoned the appellant on 12.09.2022. The High Court dismissed his quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

• Appeal to Supreme Court: The appellant appealed, primarily relying on Ravinder Kumar to argue that the search was illegal as ordered by a single member, vitiating all subsequent proceedings.

4. Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the search conducted on 17.09.2015 was illegal, being authorized by a single member (the Chairperson) of the District Appropriate Authority in violation of the ratio in Ravinder Kumar?

2. If the search was illegal, whether the evidence (records, documents) seized during such search can be relied upon in the criminal complaint proceedings?

3. Whether the appellant's prior discharge in the police case (FIR) bars the subsequent complaint under the PCPNDT Act based on the same set of facts?

4. Whether the complaint and summoning order were liable to be quashed on grounds of procedural irregularities (composition of Advisory Committee, etc.)?

5. Ratio Decidendi & Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the complaint proceedings. The core reasoning is as follows:

• On the Illegality of Search (Issue 1): The Court agreed with the appellant that the search was illegal. Applying the binding ratio in Ravinder Kumar, it held that the directive dated 17.09.2015 was issued solely by the Civil Surgeon (Chairperson) without any indication of a collective decision by the three-member District Appropriate Authority. Therefore, the search was vitiated.

• On Admissibility of Evidence from Illegal Search (Issue 2 – The Crux): This was the decisive issue. The Court held that while the search was illegal, the evidence (seized records) could still be acted upon. Relying on the Constitution Bench in Pooran Mal and other precedents (Radha Kishan, R.M. Malkani), the Court enunciated the principle that the illegality of a search does not render the material seized inadmissible. The only tests are relevancy and admissibility under the Indian Evidence Act. Courts may scrutinize such evidence carefully, but they cannot discard it entirely ("throw the baby out with the bathwater") solely because of the illegal manner of its procurement.

• On Discharge in FIR vs. PCPNDT Complaint (Issue 3): The Court held that the discharge in the police case was inconsequential. It highlighted the specific statutory scheme of the PCPNDT Act. Section 28(1) mandates that cognizance of offences under this Act can only be taken on a complaint filed by the Appropriate Authority. Furthermore, Rule 18A(3)(iv) of the PCPNDT Rules states that police should not be involved in investigating these cases, as they are to be tried as complaint cases. The police discharge application itself noted that discrepancies in record maintenance were matters for a complaint under the PCPNDT Act. Therefore, the independent statutory power of the Appropriate Authority to file a complaint remains unaffected.

• On Other Procedural Irregularities (Issue 4): The Court dismissed the argument regarding Dr. Saryu Sharma's membership in the Advisory Committee. It held that Rule 18A(2)(ii) only bars a person who is part of the "investigating machinery" from being on the Advisory Committee. Dr. Sharma was not part of any statutory investigating machinery; he was a member of the raiding team assisting the Appropriate Authority. Even if there was an irregularity, the Court found it did not vitiate the proceedings, especially given the gravity of the substantive violations.

• On the Social Object of the Act: The Court emphasized that the PCPNDT Act is a social welfare legislation aimed at protecting the girl child and combating female foeticide. The mandatory nature of maintaining records (Form F) was affirmed in FOGSI. Allowing a hyper-technical ground (illegal search) to completely derail a prosecution based on substantive evidence of statutory violations (non-maintenance of Form F) would defeat the purpose of the Act.

6. Legal Principles Established & Clarified

This judgment provides crucial clarifications on the interplay between procedural irregularities and substantive evidence under the PCPNDT Act:

• Illegal Search Does Not Immunize Wrongdoing: The most significant principle is that a procedural illegality in the conduct of a search (e.g., authorization by a single member) does not render the underlying evidence of substantive offences (like failure to maintain Form F) inadmissible or unusable. The prosecution can still rely on the seized material.

• Independent Power of Appropriate Authority: The judgment firmly establishes that the power of the Appropriate Authority to file a complaint under Section 28 is independent of and not subordinate to any police investigation or discharge order arising from the same incident.

• Distinction Between "Investigating Machinery" and Raiding Teams: The Court clarified the scope of Rule 18A(2)(ii). The bar on being a member of the Advisory Committee applies to persons who are part of the formal "investigating machinery" (like police or statutory enforcement bodies), not to civilian volunteers or officials who assist in a one-off raid.

7. Judicial Examination & Analytical Concepts

The Court's analysis was multi-faceted and pragmatic:

• Doctrine of Severability: While the search was illegal (Ravinder Kumar), the Court severed the procedural flaw from the substantive evidence obtained. It refused to let the procedural illegality nullify the entire prosecution.

• Purposive Interpretation: The Court interpreted the PCPNDT Act in light of its social objective—to prevent female foeticide. A hyper-technical interpretation that would allow a doctor to escape prosecution for non-maintenance of mandatory records due to a flaw in the search authorization would be contrary to the legislative intent.

• Balancing Rights and Social Good: The Court balanced the appellant's right to a fair trial (ensuring evidence is scrutinized) against the societal imperative to enforce laws against female foeticide. It chose a path that allowed the prosecution to proceed while acknowledging the illegality of the search.

• Principle of Admissibility over Procurement: The judgment firmly roots itself in the established evidentiary principle that the method of procurement (illegal search) does not dictate the admissibility of relevant evidence, as affirmed by the Constitution Bench in Pooran Mal.

8. Critical Analysis & Final Outcome

• Final Decision & Directions:
  The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeal.
  The complaint (COMA/116/2018) and summoning order were upheld.
  The Court clarified that while the search was illegal, the evidence (seized records) is admissible and can be relied upon during trial.

• Significance & Impact:
  Strengthens PCPNDT Enforcement: This judgment is a major boost for enforcing the PCPNDT Act. It prevents doctors and clinics from escaping prosecution on technical grounds related to the search procedure.
  Clarifies Ravinder Kumar: It limits the impact of Ravinder Kumar by holding that the remedy for an illegal search is not the quashing of the entire prosecution based on the evidence found, but that the court will scrutinize such evidence carefully. The search is bad, but the fruit of the poisonous tree (the evidence) is not automatically poisoned.
  Guidance for Prosecuting Agencies: It provides clear guidance that while following the Ravinder Kumar procedure for collective authorization is ideal, failure to do so will not be fatal if substantive evidence of a violation exists.

• Critical Viewpoint: The judgment is a pragmatic and necessary interpretation of the law. It upholds the constitutional promise of protecting the girl child while acknowledging a procedural lapse by the state. By applying the well-settled Pooran Mal principle, it avoids a situation where a technical flaw becomes an insurmountable shield for those who may have violated the law's substantive provisions. It correctly distinguishes between the legality of the search and the admissibility of its fruits, ensuring that justice on the merits is not thwarted by processual errors.

(MCQs)

1. Under which section of the PCPNDT Act can a court take cognizance of an offence, and only upon a complaint by whom?
a) Section 23, by any person
b) Section 30, by the police
c) Section 28, by the Appropriate Authority or an authorized officer
d) Section 17, by the District Advisory Committee

2. In Ravinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court held that a search under Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act is illegal if?
a) It is conducted without a warrant from a magistrate.
b) It is authorized by the Chairperson of the District Appropriate Authority without a collective decision by all its members.
c) It is conducted in the absence of independent witnesses.
d) It is conducted at night.

3. Which Constitution Bench judgment was relied upon by the Supreme Court to hold that evidence obtained from an illegal search is still admissible?
a) State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi
b) Innoventive Industries vs. ICICI Bank
c) Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection (Investigation)
d) Basheshar Nath vs. CIT

4. According to the Supreme Court's ruling in Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) vs. Union of India, the complete contents of which statutory form under the PCPNDT Rules are held to be mandatory?
a) Form A
b) Form F
c) Form G
d) Form H