The story so far: The Supreme Court on August 20, 2026, has ruled that the police cannot independently investigate offences relating to illegal prenatal sex determination under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The responsibility lies primarily with the Appropriate Authority, a specialised body constituted under the law. In a judgment authored by a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, it settles a long-standing disagreement among High Courts over whether the police could register FIRs and investigate such offences because they are classified as “cognisable” and “non-bailable”.
What was the case about?
The case arose from an allegation of illegal sex determination of a foetus at a hospital in Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh.
The District Magistrate, who was the Appropriate Authority under the Act, received information about the alleged practice. A Tehsildar was authorised to conduct a decoy operation. Following the operation, a raid was conducted at the hospital, and an FIR was registered against the doctor and others.
The FIR included offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as the sex-determination law. The accused approached the Allahabad High Court seeking to quash the charge sheet.
The High Court noticed that courts had taken different views on the role of the police in such cases and referred the issue to the Supreme Court.
There were essentially three questions before the Supreme Court: Can the police register an FIR for an offence under the Act? Can they investigate it? And can a Magistrate take cognisance of the offence on the basis of a police charge sheet?
Who is the Appropriate Authority?
The Appropriate Authority is the specialised authority created under the law to enforce the ban on sex selection and regulate the use of prenatal diagnostic techniques.
Section 17 of the Act specifically gives it the responsibility of investigating complaints of violations and taking action.
According to the section, when appointed for the whole of the State or the Union territory, it should consist of the following three members i) an officer of or above the rank of the Joint Director of Health and Family Welfare Chairperson; ii) an eminent woman representing women’s organisation; and iii) an officer of Law Department of the State or the Union territory concerned.
The functions of the appropriate authority includes to grant, suspend or cancel registration of a Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic; to enforce standards prescribed for the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory and Genetic Clinic; to investigate complaints of breach of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder and take immediate action and to seek and consider the advice of the Advisory Committee.
The Supreme Court therefore held that the law has deliberately placed the investigation of such offences with this specialised authority.
So, can the police register an FIR?
Not for the purpose of independently investigating a violation of the Act.
The complication came from Section 27 of the law, which says that every offence under it is “cognisable, non-bailable and non-compoundable.” A cognisable offence ordinarily allows the police to investigate without first obtaining permission from a court.
But the Supreme Court said that Section 27 cannot be read on its own. It has to be read along with the provisions that specifically give the Appropriate Authority the power to investigate and Section 28, which lays down how a court can take up an offence under the Act.
The Court said, “The language of the statute, more particularly Sections 27 and 28 of the Act when read together, in light of the other provisions and the socially beneficial nature of the Act as also the requirement of sensitivity along with medical and technical know-how, indicates that the police are not meant to be the investigators for the purpose of this Act. This is further made clear by the fact that an FIR once registered cannot be taken to its logical conclusion as per the procedures of this Act. The restriction applies only to offences under this Act and does not restrict the police’s power to investigate or prosecute independent offences disclosed under substantive criminal law (IPC/BNS)”.
The Court held that allowing the police to independently investigate would undermine this specialised system.
It said, “the police are not meant to be the investigators for the purpose of this Act.”
The police can, however, assist the Appropriate Authority when their help is necessary. Rule 18A(3)(iv) says that police involvement should be avoided “as far as possible”. The Court held that this rule has statutory force.
The phrase does leave room for police assistance, but not for an independent police investigation. The Court said that, when involved, the police would have to act “strictly in a supplemental or aiding capacity.”
What happens if there is also another crime?
The Supreme Court has not said that the police have no role whenever a suspected sex-determination offence is involved. The police can investigate a separate offence under the IPC, BNS or another criminal law, even if it arises from the same incident.
For example, if the facts disclose both a violation of the sex-determination law and an independently constituted offence under general criminal law, the two investigations can proceed separately.
The Appropriate Authority would investigate the offence under the special law. The police would investigate the independent criminal offence.
But the police cannot use the existence of another offence as a way of taking over the sex-determination investigation. The Court’s concurring opinion makes the distinction clear: the police cannot use a general criminal offence “as a gateway to take over the PC & PNDT inquiry.”
Similarly, the special law cannot be used to prevent the police from investigating a genuinely separate criminal offence.
Can a Magistrate act on a police chargesheet?
No. This was the third question before the Supreme Court, and the Court’s answer was categorical.
Section 28 says that a court cannot take cognizance of an offence under the Act except through the complaint mechanism specified in the provision. A police chargesheet therefore cannot, by itself, give the Magistrate jurisdiction to take cognizance of a PC &PNDT offence.
The Appropriate Authority has to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act.
The Court concluded that there is a “complete statutory embargo” on taking cognizance except in the situations provided under Section 28.
What is the takeaway?
The immediate impact is on how a suspected illegal sex-determination case moves through the criminal justice system.
If information received by a police station discloses only a violation under the Act, the police should record the information and send it, along with the relevant material, to the Appropriate Authority. They should not independently investigate the offence.
If the information also reveals an independent cognizable offence under the IPC, BNS or another general criminal law, the police can investigate that offence while sending the sex-determination component to the Appropriate Authority.
The Supreme Court has also made clear that a police investigation cannot simply end with a chargesheet for the offence under the Act. Section 28 creates a separate route for bringing such a case before a court.
The ruling does not weaken the prohibition on prenatal sex determination. Instead, it clarifies who is responsible for enforcing it.
Published – August 25, 2026 05:30 pm IST