In a ruling that slices cleanly between procedural flaw and evidentiary value, the Supreme Court has clarified that an illegal search does not automatically poison what it uncovers.
A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan underscored that even if a search suffers from lack of proper authorisation, the material seized during such an exercise does not become unusable by default. Courts, the Bench said, must still test the evidence on the touchstone of relevance and admissibility. An irregular search may invite scrutiny—but it does not grant immunity from prosecution.
The case traces back to a 2015 decoy operation triggered by allegations of unlawful sex determination. Acting on directions issued by the District Appropriate Authority, officials conducted a raid in which Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg was accused of performing an ultrasound without maintaining mandatory statutory documentation, including Form F and the patient’s signature.
Although the doctor was discharged in a related police case, the District Appropriate Authority initiated separate proceedings under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. A Magistrate issued summons in 2022. The Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to quash the proceedings, prompting an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
Before the apex court, the central argument was sharp and direct: if the search lacked valid authorisation, could anything recovered from it be relied upon at all?
The Court’s response leaned on precedent. Referring to the Constitution Bench ruling in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation), the judgment reiterated a settled principle—unless the law expressly or implicitly bars the use of evidence gathered through an unlawful search, such evidence does not automatically stand excluded.
In other words, illegality in the method does not, by itself, erase the material discovered. What ultimately matters is whether the evidence passes judicial scrutiny at trial.
With that, the Court dismissed the appeal, leaving questions of reliability and admissibility to be weighed during the course of trial proceedings.
The message is unmistakable: procedural defects may complicate a case, but they do not, on their own, dismantle it.
