New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that the Appropriate Authority constituted under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 is the sole competent authority to investigate offences under the Act, ruling that FIR registration and police investigation are barred despite the offences being classified as cognizable.
The Court, however, clarified that the police retain full power to investigate independent offences under the IPC or BNS arising from the same transaction.
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running conflict among High Courts over whether the police can register and investigate offences under the PCPNDT Act. The appeal arose from a certificate issued by the Allahabad High Court under Article 134-A, after a Single Judge quashed a chargesheet against a doctor accused of illegal sex determination at a hospital in Bulandshahr, but framed three questions of law given divergent rulings across High Courts on the role of police in such prosecutions.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh decided whether an FIR can be registered merely because offences under the Act are cognizable and non-bailable, whether police investigation is permissible at all, and whether a Magistrate can take cognizance on a police chargesheet.
The Court appointed Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta as amicus curiae and heard numerous senior counsel and counsel, along with the Union of India and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Counsel opposing police involvement argued that Sections 17, 17A and 28 read with Rule 18A(3)(iv) of the PCPNDT Rules make the Appropriate Authority the only body empowered to investigate and file complaints, and that the word “cognizable” in Section 27 cannot be read to override the exclusive complaint mechanism in Section 28.
The Union of India and the Ministry of Health, by contrast, contended that investigation and cognizance are distinct stages, that Section 27 necessarily contemplates police powers of registration and arrest at the pre-cognizance stage, and that excluding police entirely would create a backdoor immunity for offenders.
Writing for the Bench, Justice Karol held that the PCPNDT Act is a special statute whose specific procedure must prevail over the general procedure under the CrPC or BNSS. The Court found that Section 17(4) vests the power to investigate complaints squarely with the Appropriate Authority, and that Rule 18A(3)(iv), which discourages police involvement “as far as possible,” has statutory force since the Rules were laid before Parliament.
Surveying comparable regimes under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the Court noted that those statutes were similarly read as displacing ordinary police powers of registration and prosecution. Rejecting the Union's submission that Section 28 governs only cognizance, the judgment observed that the police are not meant to be the investigators for the purposes of the Act, reasoning that a chargesheet filed by police would in any event be incapable of being acted upon by a Magistrate given the bar under Section 28.
The Court further held that the word “person” in Section 28, which is expressly defined to include a social organisation, does not extend to the police as an institution, reinforcing that Parliament intended the complaint route rather than the police-report route for offences under the Act.
In a separate but concurring opinion, Justice Kotiswar Singh added clarificatory guidance for cases where the same transaction discloses both a PCPNDT offence and an independent IPC or BNS offence, such as culpable homicide or foeticide. Drawing on precedents including Jeewan Kumar Raut and Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, he held that the two offences must proceed on separate statutory tracks.
The Appropriate Authority, the Court held, would investigate the PCPNDT component, while the police may independently register and investigate any distinct cognizable offence disclosed by the same facts. Each authority may share relevant material with the other, but neither can encroach upon the other's statutory domain unless specifically requested to assist.
Answering the reference, the Court held that FIR registration is not permissible for offences under the Act merely because they are cognizable and non-bailable, though this does not curtail police power over independent IPC or BNS offences. It further held that the Appropriate Authority alone is the primary investigator, with police assistance permissible only in a supplemental capacity when sought by the Authority.
The Court also made it clear that the competent Magistrate shall not be able to take cognizance upon the filing of a chargesheet under the Act. The matter has been remanded to the Allahabad High Court to decide the underlying petition in light of these findings, and the appeal stands disposed of.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Brij Pal Singh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 2938 of 2025
