In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has set aside criminal proceedings against a Gurugram-based radiologist accused under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.
The Court held that the search and raid conducted at the diagnostic centre were legally flawed because the decision was taken by a single member of the District Appropriate Authority, and not collectively as required under the law.
Read also:- Patna High Court Dismisses Plea for Compensation Over Alleged Illegal Detention, Flags Lapses
The judgment came in Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported as 2026 INSC 176.
Background of the Case
Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg, a qualified radiologist, was accused in 2015 after a decoy operation was carried out in Gurugram. The raid followed a complaint alleging illegal sex determination of a foetus.
According to the prosecution, a pregnant woman acted as a decoy patient. She was allegedly taken to a diagnostic centre where Dr. Garg conducted an ultrasound. Authorities claimed that mandatory records under Form F were not properly maintained and that statutory requirements were violated.
An FIR was registered the same day. However, after investigation, the police filed a discharge application stating that there was no incriminating material showing that Dr. Garg had disclosed the sex of the foetus. The trial court discharged him in October 2015.
Read also:- Sikkim High Court Closes NHM Transfer Dispute After Amicable Settlement Between Employee
Nearly three years later, in 2018, the District Appropriate Authority filed a fresh complaint under the PCPNDT Act. Dr. Garg challenged the complaint and summoning order before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, but the High Court dismissed his plea. He then approached the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issue
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the raid conducted on 17 September 2015 was legally valid.
Under Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act, the “Appropriate Authority” has the power to conduct search and seizure. In Haryana, the District Appropriate Authority consists of three members - the Civil Surgeon (Chairperson), the District Programme Officer, and the District Attorney.
Dr. Garg argued that the raid was ordered only by the Civil Surgeon, acting alone, without any collective decision of the Authority.
He relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, where it was held that a search authorized by a single member of the Appropriate Authority is illegal.
Read also:- Madras High Court Rules Grandparents Not ‘Family’ for Stamp Duty Concession in Settlement Deeds
Court’s Observations
The bench examined the order dated 17 September 2015 authorizing the raid. It found that the directive was issued solely by the Civil Surgeon.
The Court noted that there was no material on record to show that the other two members of the District Appropriate Authority were consulted or that a collective decision was taken.
Referring to its ruling in Ravinder Kumar, the bench observed that the power to conduct search and seizure under Section 30 is “a drastic power” and must be exercised strictly in accordance with the statute.
The Court said in substance that if a single member authorizes a search, it would be contrary to Section 30 and therefore illegal.
The State argued that the PCPNDT Act is a social welfare legislation meant to curb female foeticide, and that technical objections should not defeat enforcement. It also relied on the Court’s earlier observations in Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) v. Union of India, where strict compliance with record-keeping requirements was emphasized.
However, the Supreme Court clarified that while the Act must be implemented firmly, statutory safeguards cannot be ignored. The legality of the search is foundational. If the search itself is invalid, the prosecution built upon it cannot stand.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Sends 17-Year-Old Girl to Mehsana Children Home After She Refuses to Return
Effect of Earlier Discharge
The Court also noted that Dr. Garg had already been discharged in the FIR-based proceedings. Although a complaint under the PCPNDT Act can be filed independently, the materials in this case were entirely linked to the disputed raid.
Since the search itself was found to be unauthorized, the complaint proceedings based on it were legally unsustainable.
The Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
It held that the raid conducted at the diagnostic centre was not authorized by the District Appropriate Authority collectively, as required under Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act. As a result, the search stood vitiated.
Consequently, the complaint filed in 2018 and the summoning order issued by the Magistrate were quashed.
The proceedings against Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg under the PCPNDT Act thus came to an end.
Case Title: Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5915 of 2025
Decision Date: 23-02-2026
