In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court set aside criminal proceedings against a pediatric surgeon accused of performing an unauthorized surgical procedure on a minor. The Court found that continuing the case would amount to an abuse of legal process.
Background of the Case
The case involved Dr. S. Balagopal, a pediatric surgeon, who operated on a young child suffering from an undescended testis. The child’s father alleged that he had consented only to a procedure known as orchidopexy (placement of the testicle), but the doctor instead performed an orchidectomy (removal of the testicle).
The complaint further claimed that the consent form had been altered later to include permission for the removal procedure. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered in 2006 under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including forgery and negligence.
Read Alaso : MP High Court Clears OBC Appointment Row: Income of Husband Not Relevant for Creamy Layer Status
A charge sheet followed, and the matter remained pending before a Magistrate’s court for years. The Madras High Court had earlier refused to quash the proceedings and directed the trial to continue.
During the investigation, a Medical Board was constituted to assess the medical aspects of the case. Its report concluded that the child’s testis was “small, cystic and dysplastic,” and that removal was an appropriate medical decision.
The Board observed that in such cases, “orchidectomy is preferred” due to risks like future malignancy. However, it emphasized that such a procedure should ideally be carried out after obtaining clear parental consent.
Hearing the appeal, the bench examined whether the criminal case could continue in light of the medical findings and available evidence.
The Court noted that there was no allegation of malice or personal gain against the doctor. It also highlighted that the Medical Board had supported the choice of procedure as medically sound.
On the issue of consent, the bench observed that a signed consent form existed, and it mentioned both procedures-orchidopexy and orchidectomy-separated by a slash.
“The consent form… indicates that both types of surgery were mentioned… suggesting that orchidectomy was one of the available options,” the bench noted.
Importantly, the Court found no forensic evidence to support the claim that the document had been tampered with. It also took note of the opinion from medical authorities that did not find any irregularity in the consent form.
Read Also : Patna High Court Dissolves Marriage Using ‘Doctrine of Frustration’, Overturns Family Court’s Void Ruling
Addressing the broader legal principle, the Court referred to established protections for medical professionals, emphasizing that criminal liability requires clear evidence of gross negligence or wrongdoing.
Concluding that the evidence did not support the allegations of forgery or criminal misconduct, the Court held that continuing the prosecution would be unjustified.
“The continuance of criminal proceeding… would be nothing but abuse of the process of the court,” the bench observed.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the Magistrate.
Case Details
Case Title: Dr. S. Balagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu & Another
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14803 of 2023 (2026 INSC 319)
Judges: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Pamidigantam Sri Narasimha
Decision Date: April 6, 2026
