Supreme Court Ruling on PCPNDT Act Investigations
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has declared that police cannot typically conduct investigations into offences related to foetal sex determination under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act). This decision was delivered by a bench consisting of Justices Sanjay Karol and NK Singh in the case of State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. Vs Brij Pal Singh And Anr.
The Supreme Court clarified that while the police may have a supplementary role as directed by the Appropriate Authority (AA) under the Act, they are not meant to be the primary investigators. “Police are not intended to investigate under this Act. Their involvement should be minimized, with their role being supplementary as required by the AA,” the Court stated.
Supporting the Allahabad High Court’s View
This judgment aligns with the Allahabad High Court’s stance that police cannot investigate or file first information reports (FIRs) for violations of the PCPNDT Act. The Supreme Court emphasized that the nature of offences under this Act requires technical and medical expertise, which suggests that the police should not be the main investigating body.
The Court highlighted that once an FIR is registered by the police, it cannot be processed to its conclusion following procedures under the PCPNDT Act. However, this does not impede the police’s ability to investigate independent offences under general criminal law.
Roles and Responsibilities Under the PCPNDT Act
The Act designates specific functions to the AA, including filing complaints and conducting investigations, as outlined under Section 17(4). Additionally, Section 28 of the Act restricts magistrates from taking cognisance of offences unless a complaint is issued by the AA or another authorized individual, such as a social organization, explicitly excluding police-initiated FIRs.
More Read
The case arose following a 2017 incident where a doctor in Uttar Pradesh was charged under the PCPNDT Act for allegedly conducting illegal sex determination tests. The doctor challenged the FIR on the grounds that only the AA could file such complaints, not the police. The Tehsildar’s involvement, authorized by the District Magistrate, was contested as insufficient by the doctor’s counsel.
State’s Argument and Court’s Conclusion
The State defended the FIR, asserting that no statutory prohibition exists against police filing an FIR under the PCPNDT Act. It argued that the Tehsildar was appropriately empowered to file complaints. However, the Allahabad High Court maintained that the PCPNDT Act’s framework provides a comprehensive code for handling investigations, limiting police involvement due to the specialized nature of the cases.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s interpretation, affirming that police should not investigate PCPNDT Act offences. However, it returned the case to the High Court for further deliberation on specific issues. A detailed judgment is anticipated.
