Potency Test Can't Be Ordered Routinely In Rape Case Alleging Digital Penetration: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has set aside an order directing an accused to undergo a potency test in a rape investigation, holding that the prosecution had not explained how the test would assist its case when the allegation concerned digital penetration.Justice J. Sreenivas Rao held that the seriousness of an allegation and the investigating agency's power to collect evidence could not,...
The Telangana High Court has set aside an order directing an accused to undergo a potency test in a rape investigation, holding that the prosecution had not explained how the test would assist its case when the allegation concerned digital penetration.
Justice J. Sreenivas Rao held that the seriousness of an allegation and the investigating agency's power to collect evidence could not, by themselves, justify a medical examination. The prosecution had to show why the test was relevant and necessary in the particular case.
The Court observed:
“The common principle emerging from Kajendran (supra), R.Rajendran (supra), and Archana Patil (supra), is that medical or scientific examinations of an accused, including potency and DNA tests, cannot be ordered routinely or mechanically. Such examinations must be based on the facts and circumstances of the particular case and satisfy the requirements of relevance, necessity and proportionality, while safeguarding the accused's privacy, bodily autonomy, personal liberty and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.In particular, potency testing is not a mandatory requirement in sexual-offence cases and cannot be insisted upon merely because an allegation or defence relating to potency has been raised”.
The petitioner, M. Uday Krishna Reddy, challenged a Magistrate's order permitting investigators to take him to a government hospital for a potency test under Section 52 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The prosecution had added rape and other charges during its investigation of a complaint against him.
G. Ashok Reddy, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the allegation was one of digital, rather than penile, penetration. The prosecution had not identified any connection between the proposed potency test and that allegation, he argued. He also pointed out that the Magistrate had earlier declined a request for police custody to conduct the same test because its purpose had not been explained.
Public Prosecutor Palle Nageswara Rao submitted that the examination was needed to assess the accused's capability to perform a sexual act and would assist a complete investigation. Senior Advocate L. Ravichander, representing Mayur Mundra for the complainant, supported the Magistrate's order.
The question before the High Court was whether the prosecution had established a case-specific need for the test after its earlier request had been refused.
The Court found that the later application supplied no specific reasons explaining how the test would help investigate the alleged digital penetration. It identified no changed circumstances either. The Magistrate had nevertheless allowed it on the grounds that the allegations were grave and investigators were entitled to collect incriminating material.
The Bench clarified that the issue was not whether digital penetration amounted to rape or whether the law permitted medical examination in an appropriate case. The question was the relevance of this particular examination to the offence under investigation.
The Court accordingly allowed the petition and set aside the order permitting the potency test. It clarified that the prosecution remains free to make a fresh application in accordance with law if a need for the examination arises.
Case Title: M. Uday Krishna Reddy v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 13846 of 2026
Appearance: G. Ashok Reddy for the petitioner; Public Prosecutor Palle Nageswara Rao for the State; Senior Advocate L. Ravichander, representing Mayur Mundra, for respondent No. 2.