A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The Supreme Court of India in Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana dealt with the legality of a search conducted under Section 30(1) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The issue pertained to the interpretation of the expression “reason to believe” and whether a search conducted solely on the decision of an individual member of the Appropriate Authority could stand scrutiny under the law. The Court quashed the FIR and complaint against the appellant, holding that the search was illegal and violated statutory safeguards. The judgment emphasized that procedural compliance by all members of the Appropriate Authority is a sine qua non for conducting such a search.
Keywords: Pre-Conception Act, Illegal Search, Reason to Believe, Procedural Safeguards, Abuse of Law.
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgment Cause Title: Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana
ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3747 of 2024
iii) Judgment Date: 12 September 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ.
vi) Author: Justice Abhay S. Oka
vii) Citation: [2024] 9 S.C.R. 397
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Section 23, 28(1), and 30(1) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994; Section 26, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None explicitly mentioned.
x) Case is Related to Which Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Procedural Law, Medical Law, Statutory Interpretation.
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT
The appellant, a radiologist, challenged the legality of a search conducted on his clinic by a raiding team led by a Civil Surgeon under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994. The clinic was searched based on allegations of illegal sex determination and the preparation of ultrasound reports. However, the search was conducted without a collective decision by the Appropriate Authority, as mandated by law. The appellant sought to quash the FIR and complaint initiated on the basis of the materials seized during this raid. The High Court dismissed the plea, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant’s clinic was raided following a sting operation that involved a decoy patient posing as someone seeking sex determination services. The Civil Surgeon, as Chairman of the District Appropriate Authority, unilaterally authorized the search. The team seized documents, including an ultrasound report allegedly signed by the appellant. The FIR was filed under Section 23 of the Act, and a subsequent complaint was initiated under Section 28(1). The appellant argued that the search was illegal as it lacked the collective authorization of the Appropriate Authority, rendering all consequential actions void.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i) Whether the search conducted solely on the decision of the Civil Surgeon, without the approval of other members of the Appropriate Authority, was lawful under Section 30(1) of the Act.
ii) What constitutes “reason to believe” under the Act, and whether procedural safeguards were adhered to during the search.
iii) Whether the prosecution initiated based on an illegal search could be sustained.
F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The appellant argued that the Act mandates collective decision-making by the Appropriate Authority, comprising the Civil Surgeon, District Program Officer, and District Attorney, for conducting a search. The search was authorized solely by the Civil Surgeon, rendering it illegal and procedurally flawed.
ii) The appellant emphasized that the expression “reason to believe” requires a rational basis and cannot be left to individual discretion. No cogent evidence was presented to justify the raid.
iii) The appellant contended that all evidence seized during the raid was tainted due to the illegality of the search, and any prosecution based on such evidence would constitute an abuse of process.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The respondent admitted procedural lapses but claimed that the urgency of the situation justified the Civil Surgeon’s unilateral action. The raid was necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence.
ii) It was argued that the defect in the search authorization was a curable irregularity, not an illegality, and that the Appropriate Authority later ratified the decision to file a complaint.
iii) The respondent maintained that the FIR and complaint were based on valid material evidence, and the procedural irregularity did not prejudice the appellant.
H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i) Section 23, Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994: Penalizes those involved in illegal sex determination.
ii) Section 28(1), Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994: Mandates that only an officer authorized by the Appropriate Authority can file a complaint.
iii) Section 30(1), Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994: Governs search and seizure, requiring a collective decision of the Appropriate Authority.
iv) Section 26, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines “reason to believe.”
I) JUDGMENT
a. Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the search conducted without the collective approval of the Appropriate Authority violated Section 30(1) of the Act. Such a search is illegal, and all materials seized during it are inadmissible as evidence.
b. Obiter Dicta
The Court noted that procedural compliance is crucial to uphold the rule of law and prevent abuse of statutory powers under the Act.
c. Guidelines
- A search under Section 30(1) must be authorized collectively by all members of the Appropriate Authority.
- The expression “reason to believe” must be based on objective materials and cannot be subjective.
- Procedural safeguards must be strictly adhered to, even in urgent situations, through tools like virtual meetings.
J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
This judgment underscores the necessity of procedural compliance in searches and seizures under regulatory statutes. It serves as a cautionary tale against arbitrary actions by individual members of statutory bodies. The decision protects procedural safeguards and upholds the foundational principles of fairness and legality in criminal prosecutions.
K) REFERENCES
- Aslam Mohammad Merchant v. Competent Authority [2008] 10 SCR 332: Interpretation of “reason to believe.”
- Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, Sections 23, 28(1), and 30(1).
- Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 26.
