Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana and Ors., 2026
The Court reaffirmed the long-standing Indian position rejecting the strict “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine followed in certain jurisdictions like the United States.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
23 February 2026
Judges
Justice Manoj Misra & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
A complaint was received on September 17, 2015, alleging illegal sex determination activities.
-
Acting on the directions of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chairperson of the District Appropriate Authority, a decoy operation was conducted.
-
It was alleged that the appellant conducted an ultrasound examination.
-
The allegation included failure to maintain mandatory statutory records, particularly Form F.
-
It was further alleged that the patient’s signature was not obtained as required under law.
-
A police case arising out of the same incident resulted in the discharge of the appellant.
-
Separately, the District Appropriate Authority filed a complaint under the PCPNDT Act.
-
In 2022, a Magistrate issued summons against the appellant.
-
The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to quash the proceedings.
-
Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issues
-
Whether the search conducted against the appellant was illegal for want of proper authorisation?
-
Whether evidence collected during an illegal search is liable to be excluded from consideration?
-
Whether the alleged illegality in search renders the entire prosecution unsustainable?
Judgement
-
The Court observed that even if a search is illegal, the materials or evidence gathered during such search are not automatically rendered inadmissible.
-
The Bench relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation) (1974).
-
It reiterated that unless there is an express or necessarily implied legal prohibition, evidence obtained through illegal search or seizure is not liable to be excluded.
-
The Court clarified that admissibility of evidence depends on relevancy and established rules of evidence.
-
The determination of admissibility and reliability is a matter for the trial court.
-
The Court partly accepted the contention regarding illegality of search but rejected the argument that such illegality vitiated the proceedings.
-
The appeal was dismissed.
-
All questions regarding admissibility and reliability of evidence were left open for consideration during trial.
Held
-
Illegality in search does not automatically invalidate the evidence collected.
-
Evidence obtained through an illegal search may still be relied upon if it satisfies the test of relevancy and admissibility.
-
The appeal was dismissed.
-
Issues of admissibility and reliability are to be decided at trial.
Analysis
-
The Court reaffirmed the long-standing Indian position rejecting the strict “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine followed in certain jurisdictions like the United States.
-
By relying on Pooran Mal, the Court reinforced that Indian law prioritizes relevancy over the manner of procurement unless explicitly prohibited by statute.
-
The judgment strengthens prosecutorial authority in regulatory statutes such as the PCPNDT Act.
-
It balances procedural irregularities with substantive justice, ensuring that technical defects do not automatically defeat prosecution.
-
The ruling clarifies that procedural illegality in investigation does not per se vitiate trial proceedings.
-
It underscores judicial discretion in assessing admissibility and reliability of evidence.
-
The decision may have significant implications in criminal jurisprudence concerning search and seizure operations.