The Telangana High Court on September 9 observed that a potency test cannot be ordered as a routine or mechanical step in a sexual-offence investigation and has set aside a Magistrate's order permitting the medical examination of a trainee IPS officer in a rape case.

Justice J. Srinivas Rao allowed a criminal petition filed by M. Uday Krishna Reddy, an IPS officer trainee, challenging the August 17, 2026 order of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XXV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar.

The prosecution had sought permission to produce Reddy before a government hospital for a medico-legal potency examination. The High Court found that the prosecution had failed to provide specific reasons explaining why the test was necessary or how it would assist the investigation, particularly when its case against Reddy involved an allegation of digital penetration/rape.

The Court consequently set aside the Magistrate's order, while clarifying that the prosecution would remain free to approach the court with an appropriate application if the necessity for such an examination arises in accordance with law.

Criminal case against trainee IPS officer

The proceedings arose from a complaint lodged by the alleged victim on July 18, 2026. The FIR initially invoked several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act. During the investigation, offences under Section 64(1) read with Section 63(b)(iii) and Section 109 of the BNS were added.

The prosecution's specific case, as recorded by the High Court, was that Reddy had committed digital penetration/rape against the complainant.

First request for potency test was rejected

The prosecution had initially moved the Magistrate seeking seven days' police custody of Reddy, including for recovery of his mobile phone and conducting a potency test.

On August 5, the Magistrate declined the request for custody for the purpose of the potency examination. The Court noted that the prosecution had not specified why the test was required or explained how it would assist the case.

It nevertheless granted two days' police custody for recovery of the mobile phone containing the SIM, subject to conditions.

The prosecution subsequently filed another application under Section 52 read with Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking permission to produce Reddy before a government hospital for the potency examination.

That application was allowed by the Magistrate on August 17.

High Court finds no specific justification

Before the High Court, Reddy's counsel argued that the second application essentially sought the same relief that had earlier been refused and that the prosecution had not shown any changed circumstances.

It was also argued that potency testing was not mandatory in every rape case and that Section 52 BNSS contemplates such examination where there are reasonable grounds for believing that it will provide evidence relating to the commission of the offence.

The defence particularly stressed that the allegation concerned digital penetration, rather than penile penetration, and therefore there was no demonstrated evidentiary connection between the accused's potency and the alleged offence.

The prosecution, however, maintained that the allegations were grave and that the potency examination could provide medical or scientific evidence relevant to the investigation. It argued that the investigating agency was entitled to collect material necessary for presenting a complete factual case.

The High Court was not persuaded that the prosecution had established the required nexus.

'Cannot be ordered routinely or mechanically'

Justice Srinivas Rao examined a series of precedents dealing with medical and scientific examinations of accused persons.

The Court noted that the Madras High Court had held in Kajendran v. Superintendent of Police that a male potency test should not be insisted upon as a routine requirement in sexual-offence cases and must be specifically warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha, which emphasised that intrusive scientific examinations must satisfy the requirements of legality, legitimate purpose and proportionality, and must have a direct and demonstrable nexus with the offence under investigation.

A similar principle was noted from the Karnataka High Court's decision in Archana Patil v. State of Karnataka, which held that a potency test cannot be conducted merely because an allegation or defence concerning potency has been raised.

Drawing these principles together, the High Court held that medical or scientific examinations, including potency and DNA tests, cannot be ordered routinely or mechanically.

Such examinations must be case-specific, relevant, necessary and proportionate, while taking into account an accused person's privacy, bodily autonomy, personal liberty and dignity under Article 21.

The Court specifically observed that potency testing is not a mandatory requirement in sexual-offence cases.

Digital penetration and relevance of potency test

A significant part of the Court's reasoning concerned the nature of the allegation itself.

The High Court noted that there was no dispute over the legal proposition that digital penetration could constitute rape. Nor was the Court questioning the statutory authority for medical examination of an accused.

The issue was narrower: how would a potency test assist the prosecution when its specific case was that the alleged rape involved digital penetration?

The Court observed that the prosecution's second application did not answer this question.

It had again failed to state specific reasons for requiring the test or explain how the examination would advance the investigation. It had also not demonstrated any changed circumstances after the earlier order of August 5.

The Court therefore held that the Magistrate had erred in allowing the application merely on the basis that the allegations were grave and that the investigating agency had a right to collect incriminating material.

The August 17 order was accordingly set aside.

While allowing Reddy's petition, the High Court did not impose an absolute prohibition on potency testing.

It expressly stated that the order would not prevent the prosecution from filing an appropriate petition in accordance with law if the necessity for such an examination arises.

Case Title: M. Uday Krishna Reddy v The State of Telangana

Tags: