Telangana HC: Potency Test Not Routine in Sexual Offense Cases

• The Telangana High Court ruled that a potency test cannot be routinely ordered in sexual offense investigations.
• The court set aside a Magistrate's order for a medico-legal potency examination of trainee IPS officer M. Uday Krishna Reddy.
• The High Court found the prosecution failed to justify the test's necessity or its relevance to the alleged digital penetration/rape.
• Justice J. Srinivas Rao emphasized that such medical examinations must have a specific evidentiary nexus to the offense.
• The ruling clarifies that while routine tests are prohibited, a justified application for an examination can still be considered.

This ruling provides crucial clarity regarding medico-legal potency examinations in India, particularly under the framework of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The Telangana High Court recently ruled that a medico-legal potency examination cannot be ordered as a standard procedure in sexual offense investigations. On September 9, the court invalidated a lower court's directive that had permitted such an examination for a trainee IPS officer accused in a rape case. This decision underscores the necessity for specific justification rather than routine application of such tests.

Justice J. Srinivas Rao presided over the criminal petition filed by M. Uday Krishna Reddy, the IPS officer trainee. Reddy had challenged an order issued on August 17, 2026, by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XXV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, located in Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar. The prosecution had sought to have Reddy undergo a potency test at a government hospital.

The High Court determined that the prosecution had failed to articulate clear reasons for the test's necessity or demonstrate how it would contribute to the ongoing investigation. This lack of specific justification was particularly pertinent given that the allegations against Reddy involved digital penetration/rape, rather than an offense where penile penetration would be central. While setting aside the Magistrate's order, the court clarified that the prosecution retains the option to submit a new application if a legitimate need for such an examination arises in accordance with legal requirements.

The legal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by the alleged victim on July 18, 2026. Initially, the First Information Report (FIR) cited various provisions from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act. As the investigation progressed, additional charges were incorporated under Section 64(1) read with Section 63(b)(iii) and Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, specifically alleging digital penetration/rape by Reddy against the complainant.

The prosecution's initial attempt to secure a potency test occurred when they requested seven days of police custody for Reddy. This request was intended to facilitate both the recovery of his mobile phone and the conduct of a potency examination. However, on August 5, the Magistrate denied the portion of the custody request pertaining to the potency test, noting the absence of specific reasons or an explanation of how the test would aid the case. The Magistrate did, however, grant two days of police custody for the purpose of recovering the mobile phone and its SIM card, subject to certain conditions.

Subsequently, the prosecution submitted a second application, this time under Section 52 read with Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking permission to present Reddy for the medico-legal potency examination at a government hospital. This renewed application was approved by the Magistrate on August 17, leading to the challenge before the Telangana High Court.

Before the Telangana High Court, M. Uday Krishna Reddy's legal counsel contended that the prosecution's second application for a potency test was essentially a re-submission of a previously denied request, without any demonstration of changed circumstances. The defense emphasized that potency testing is not a mandatory component in every rape case and highlighted that Section 52 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) stipulates that such examinations are permissible only when there are reasonable grounds to believe they will yield evidence pertinent to the alleged offense.

A key point of the defense's argument was the specific nature of the accusation: digital penetration, as opposed to penile penetration. This distinction, they argued, meant there was no discernible evidentiary connection between the accused's physical potency and the alleged crime. Conversely, the prosecution maintained that the gravity of the allegations warranted the examination, asserting that a potency test could furnish medical or scientific evidence relevant to the investigation. They further argued that the investigating agency possessed the right to gather all necessary material to construct a comprehensive factual case.

This ruling provides crucial clarity regarding medico-legal potency examinations in India, particularly under the framework of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. It establishes that these tests are not to be performed as a matter of course but must be justified by the specific facts of the case and demonstrate a clear evidentiary link to the alleged offense.

The Telangana High Court's decision sets a significant precedent, affirming that a potency test cannot be routinely ordered in sexual offense cases. This ruling clarifies that any such medical examination must be supported by specific facts of the particular case and possess a direct evidentiary nexus to the alleged crime. It reinforces the principle that investigative procedures, especially those involving personal medical examinations, must not be mechanical but rather thoughtfully justified.

This judgment holds particular relevance for cases involving allegations like digital penetration, where the accused's physical potency may not have a direct bearing on the commission of the offense. By setting aside the Magistrate's order, the High Court emphasized the need for prosecutors to articulate precisely how a potency test would assist their investigation, especially when the alleged act does not involve penile penetration. The court's stance ensures that the rights of the accused are protected against unwarranted medical intrusions, while still allowing for necessary examinations when a clear legal and evidentiary basis is established.

The court's clarification that the prosecution can re-approach the court with an appropriate application, should the necessity for such an examination arise in accordance with law, balances the investigative needs with individual rights. This means that while routine orders are prohibited, a well-reasoned request demonstrating a clear link between the test and the specific allegations could still be considered. This nuanced approach is vital for ensuring justice in sexual offense cases across India.

This ruling provides a crucial precedent for lawyers involved in sexual offense cases in India, clarifying that potency tests cannot be routinely ordered. Practitioners must be prepared to challenge or justify such medical examinations by demonstrating a clear evidentiary nexus to the specific allegations, especially where the alleged offense does not involve penile penetration.

Source: Original reporting via Lawbeat News Desk