Supreme Court: Police Cannot Investigate PC-PNDT Act Offences as Primary Agency
Legal News | 21 August 2026
The Supreme Court has held that police cannot act as the primary investigating agency for offences under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. Investigation of complaints under the special statute is principally entrusted to the Appropriate Authority constituted under the Act.
The ruling was delivered in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brij Pal Singh by a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh.
Sections 27 and 28 must be read with the statutory scheme
Section 27 declares offences under the PC-PNDT Act cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable. Section 28, however, restricts cognisance to a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority or another person authorised in the manner prescribed by the Act.
The Supreme Court held that the declaration of an offence as cognizable does not permit the general criminal procedure to displace the special investigative and cognisance structure created by Parliament.
Appropriate Authority has the investigative responsibility
The Court relied on Section 17(4), which assigns the Appropriate Authority functions including investigation of complaints and taking immediate action. The Authority also has statutory powers connected with summons, documents, search and seizure.
The police may provide assistance when required—for example, in protection, tracing persons, digital or forensic assistance or preservation of evidence—but such assistance does not convert the police into the principal investigator of the PC-PNDT offence.
No cognisance on police chargesheet for PC-PNDT offence
The Court further held that a Magistrate cannot take cognisance of an offence under the Act merely on a police chargesheet, because Section 28 prescribes the legally competent mode of complaint.
At the same time, independent IPC or BNS offences disclosed by the same transaction may be investigated by police under the ordinary criminal law. The two statutory tracks can operate separately where necessary.
Case: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brij Pal Singh, Criminal Appeal No. 2938 of 2025, decided on 20 August 2026.
This report is a legal-news summary of the Supreme Court judgment and does not substitute for the statutory text or the full decision.