Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana 2026 INSC 176 - PCPNDT Rules - Female Foeticide - Sex Determination
"Discrimination against the girl child and by extension women is still prevalent in several parts of the country. "
Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (PCPNDT Rules)-Rule 18A(2)(ii) - Rule 18A(2)(ii) is applicable only to a person who is part of the investigating machinery in cases under the PCPNDT Act. These guidelines can only be termed as directory being part of the general code of conduct to be observed by appropriate authorities, violation of which may render a proceeding irregular but not illegal. (Para 55)
Female Foeticide - Discrimination against the girl child and by extension women is still prevalent in several parts of the country. Crude and ugly manifestation of such social malady is in the form of female foeticide. The first step towards commission of such an offence is in the sex determination of the foetus. (Para 56)
Case Info
Basic Case Details
Case name: Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana and Ors.Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 176Court / Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate JurisdictionCoram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal BhuyanJudgment date: 23 February 2026
Case Laws and Citations Referred
- Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2495
- Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) v. Union of India, (2019) 6 SCC 283
- Radha Kishan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 822
- R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 471
- Magraj Patodia v. R.K. Birla, AIR 1971 SC 1295
- Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation), New Delhi, (1974) 1 SCC 345
Statutes / Rules Referred
- Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act)
- Sections 2(a), 3A, 3B, 4 (especially 4(2), 4(3) and its proviso), 5, 6, 17, 17(4), 17A, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 32
- Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (PCPNDT Rules)
- Rules 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 18A (esp. 18A(1)(v), 18A(2)(ii), 18A(3)) and Form F
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)
- Sections 468(2)(c), 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
- Section 420
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (discussed generally on admissibility/relevancy of illegally obtained evidence)
Three‑Sentence Brief Summary
The case concerns a radiologist, Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg, prosecuted under the PCPNDT Act after a sting operation for alleged illegal sex-determination, where he had been earlier discharged in a related IPC/PCPNDT FIR but later summoned on a statutory complaint by the District Appropriate Authority for non‑maintenance of mandatory records (Form F etc.). The Supreme Court held that although the raid/search was vitiated because it had been authorized only by the Chairperson and not by the District Appropriate Authority collectively (applying Ravinder Kumar), the illegality of the search does not by itself render the seized records inadmissible, which can still be used subject to rules of relevancy and admissibility. Emphasizing the stringent, welfare‑oriented nature of the PCPNDT regime and that non‑maintenance of records is itself a grave offence, the Court refused to quash the complaint and dismissed the appeal, leaving all issues on merits and admissibility to be decided at trial.