The Supreme Court on Monday, February 23, held that a search conducted without proper authorisation may be illegal. However, that defect alone does not invalidate the material or evidence collected during the operation.
A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan said courts may still rely on evidence gathered in an unlawful search, subject to relevancy and admissibility. The Court observed: “While the search may be illegal, the materials or evidence gathered or collected in the course of such search can still be acted or relied upon subject to the rule of relevancy and the test of admissibility.”
Background of the case
The case arose from a raid conducted on September 17, 2015, after a complaint alleged illegal sex determination. Acting on directions from the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chairperson of the District Appropriate Authority, officials carried out a decoy operation.
Authorities later alleged that the appellant, Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg, performed an ultrasound examination without maintaining mandatory statutory records. They also alleged lapses relating to Form F and the patient’s signature.
Dr. Garg later secured discharge in the police case linked to the same incident. Despite this, the District Appropriate Authority initiated separate proceedings by filing a complaint under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act).
A Magistrate issued summons in 2022. Dr. Garg challenged the proceedings before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court refused to quash the complaint. He then approached the Supreme Court in appeal.
Supreme Court’s reasoning
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the search lacked proper authorisation and was therefore illegal. On that basis, he claimed the seized material should be treated as inadmissible.
The Court accepted, in part, the argument that the search was illegal. At the same time, in a judgment authored by Justice Bhuyan, the Bench relied on the Constitution Bench ruling in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspector (Investigation), (1974) 1 SCC 345. It reiterated that “unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in law, evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out.”
The Court clarified that the manner of collection does not decide admissibility by itself. It said the trial court must assess admissibility by applying the relevant legal tests.
Outcome
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. However, it kept all questions on the reliability and admissibility of the evidence open for consideration during trial.
Cause Title: DR. NARESH KUMAR GARG VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
