Beyond Police Powers: Supreme Court Bars Cops From Registering FIRs Under Anti-Sex Determination Law

Police officers cannot independently register First Information Reports (FIRs) or probe violations under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PC & PNDT) Act, the Supreme Court has ruled.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh clarified that the designated Appropriate Authority under the legislation holds sole statutory responsibility for investigating complaints. Magistrates cannot take cognizance of chargesheets submitted directly by police officers under this law, the apex court added.

Clashing Provisions and the Statutory Dilemma

The ruling addresses a long-standing procedural friction between Sections 27 and 28 of the 1994 legislation, which was enacted to prevent female foeticide and regulate medical diagnostic technology.

Section 27 classifies all offences under the statute as cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable, qualities that normally trigger standard police interventions. Section 28, however, restricts judicial cognizance, dictating that courts can act only upon a formal complaint filed by the designated Appropriate Authority, an authorised officer, or a private individual who has given a mandatory 15-day prior notice.

The matter reached the top court following a September 2024 reference by the Allahabad High Court in The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brij Pal Singh, which sought clarity on whether police could register FIRs and submit chargesheets independently given the statute's cognizable label.

Specialized Oversight Over Regular Policing

Addressing the questions referred to it, the bench emphasized that the specialized nature of the law requires dedicated administrative oversight rather than standard police intervention.

"Keeping in mind its socially beneficial nature and the sensitivity and medical and technical know-how involved... the police are not meant to be the investigators for offences under the Act," the court observed.

The bench pointed to Section 17(4) of the Act alongside statutory rules that mandate avoiding police involvement wherever possible. An FIR lodged directly by law enforcement officers cannot reach a valid legal conclusion under the special framework, rendering police-led probes legally unsustainable for these specific charges.

Supplemental Role and Criminal Offence Exceptions

The Supreme Court highlighted crucial exceptions to ensure accountability remains intact:

• Police Role Restricted to Assistance: Law enforcement agencies may assist the Appropriate Authority, but only in a supplemental capacity when specifically requested by the designated officials.
• General Criminal Charges Unaffected: The restriction applies strictly to offences under the PC & PNDT Act. Police maintain full authority to register FIRs, investigate, and prosecute related offences under general criminal law, such as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) or the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• Magisterial Cognizance: Trial courts cannot act on standard police chargesheets for PC & PNDT violations, as Section 28 creates a self-contained procedure for bringing violations before a judge.

Assisted by Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta as Amicus Curiae, the apex court answered the reference questions and remanded the matter back to the Allahabad High Court to decide the underlying case in line with these statutory interpretations.