Police cannot investigate sex determination offences under PCPNDT Act: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brij Pal Singh, held that police cannot ordinarily register an FIR and conduct a standard criminal investigation into offences under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act).
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh held that the special statutory mechanism created by the PCPNDT Act — centred on the "Appropriate Authority" — must prevail over the ordinary police investigation procedure under criminal law.
The Court held that the Appropriate Authority holds the primary responsibility to investigate complaints and file them before a Magistrate, since sex-determination offences involve technical, medical evidence requiring specialised handling and sensitivity that police investigation is not designed for.
Police were held to have only a limited, supplementary role — such as assisting with searches, seizures, preventing destruction of evidence, or maintaining law and order — at the request of the Appropriate Authority, but cannot take over or lead the investigation.
The ruling clarifies that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a PCPNDT offence merely on the basis of a police charge-sheet; a formal complaint route through the Appropriate Authority (or an authorised individual after due notice) is required.
The PCPNDT Act, 1994 — Legal Framework Against Sex Selection
The Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act was enacted in 1994 to check female foeticide and regulate the use of diagnostic techniques capable of prenatal sex determination; it was amended in 2003 (renamed the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994) to also cover pre-conception sex-selection technologies such as sperm-sorting, following the increasing misuse of ultrasound and IVF-related technology. The Act mandates registration of all genetic counselling centres, laboratories, and clinics conducting prenatal diagnostic procedures, and prohibits sex determination and sex selection at any stage before or after conception.
Key Details
- Enacted 1994; substantially amended by the PNDT (Amendment) Act, 2003 to widen its scope to pre-conception sex selection and strengthen penalties.
- Section 3A/3B prohibit sex selection before and after conception; Section 5 mandates written consent and prohibits communicating the sex of the foetus.
- First offence under the Act attracts imprisonment up to 3 years and fine up to ₹10,000; subsequent offences attract up to 5 years and fine up to ₹50,000-₹1,00,000, along with suspension/cancellation of registration for medical practitioners.
The Supreme Court's ruling interprets how offences created by this special Act must be investigated and prosecuted, reinforcing that the Act's own enforcement architecture, not ordinary police machinery, drives implementation.
The Appropriate Authority and Section 28 — Bar on Direct Cognizance
The PCPNDT Act creates a dedicated regulatory hierarchy — Appropriate Authorities (at state, district, and sub-district levels) supported by an Advisory Committee — with powers of a civil court for summoning persons, discovery/production of documents, and search and seizure of records at unregistered premises. Section 28 of the Act specifically bars a court from taking cognizance of an offence except on a complaint made by, or with the previous sanction of, the Appropriate Authority (or by a person who has given the Authority 15 days' prior notice of the alleged offence and their intention to file a complaint).
Key Details
- Appropriate Authorities are constituted under Section 17 of the Act at appropriate administrative levels, with quasi-judicial powers under Section 17(4).
- Section 28(1)(a) restricts cognizance to complaints filed by the Appropriate Authority or officers it authorises; Section 28(1)(b) allows a private complainant only after 15 days' notice to the Authority.
- The Advisory Committee assists the Appropriate Authority with technical and professional matters — reflecting the "medical/technical sensitivity" rationale cited by the Court for keeping ordinary police out of the primary investigative role.
This is the precise statutory basis for the ruling — Section 28's complaint-bar mechanism is what the Court relied on to hold that police-led FIR investigation cannot substitute for the Appropriate Authority-led complaint process.
Constitutional Basis — Article 21, Article 39, and the Skewed Sex Ratio
Female foeticide and sex-selective practices are treated as violations of the right to life and dignity of the girl child under Article 21, and run contrary to the Directive Principles in Article 39(a) (equal right to livelihood) and Article 39(e)/(f) (protection of children against exploitation and abandonment, and against moral and material abandonment). The Act also operationalises the constitutional guarantee of non-discrimination on grounds of sex under Article 15, and Article 15(3), which permits the State to make special provisions for women and children.
Key Details
- India's child sex ratio (0-6 years) was recorded at 919 females per 1,000 males in Census 2011, down from 927 in 2001, reflecting the persistence of prenatal sex selection despite the PCPNDT Act.
- The Beti Bachao Beti Padhao scheme (launched 2015) is the flagship convergent scheme addressing declining child sex ratio, working alongside PCPNDT Act enforcement.
- Courts, including the Supreme Court in earlier PCPNDT litigation (e.g., CEHAT v. Union of India, 2003, which directed strict implementation of the Act), have repeatedly emphasised strict, technically competent enforcement as central to protecting these constitutional guarantees.
By channelling investigations through the specialised Appropriate Authority rather than general police, the Court's ruling is aimed at making enforcement more effective and technically sound in service of these underlying constitutional and welfare objectives.
- Case: State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. Brij Pal Singh and Anr., decided by a Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh (August 2026).
- Governing statute: Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (amended 2003).
- Key provision interpreted: Section 28 — bar on courts taking cognizance without a complaint by the Appropriate Authority (or 15-day-notice private complainant).
- First-offence penalty under the Act: up to 3 years' imprisonment and fine up to ₹10,000; enhanced penalties on repeat offences.
- Child sex ratio (0-6 years), Census 2011: 919 girls per 1,000 boys, down from 927 in Census 2001.