Introduction
The Kerala High Court has held that conducting a potency test on a person accused in a criminal case, including under the POCSO Act, without obtaining his consent does not violate the fundamental right to privacy or bodily integrity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court observed that such medical examinations are legally permissible when carried out as part of a criminal investigation.
Legal Issue
The primary issue before the Court was whether a potency test conducted on a POCSO accused without his informed consent infringed his constitutional rights to privacy, dignity, and bodily autonomy guaranteed under Article 21. The accused argued that the test was unconstitutional and that the evidence obtained through it should not be relied upon.
Background
The case arose from a criminal appeal filed by a man convicted under provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. During the proceedings, the accused challenged the medical potency test conducted on him, contending that it had been carried out without his consent and therefore violated his fundamental rights.
The prosecution, on the other hand, maintained that the examination formed part of a lawful investigation and was authorized by statutory provisions governing medical examination of accused persons in criminal cases.
Court’s Decision
Justice A. Badharudeen rejected the accused’s challenge and held that a potency test conducted during a criminal investigation does not violate Article 21 merely because the accused did not consent to it. The Court noted that criminal procedure laws specifically empower investigating agencies to subject accused persons to medical examination when such examination is relevant to the investigation.
The Court observed that the right to privacy is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions sanctioned by law. It held that a medical examination undertaken for the purpose of collecting evidence in a criminal case falls within the framework of legally permissible investigative measures.
The Court further found that the accused had failed to demonstrate how the potency test caused any unconstitutional infringement of his rights. Consequently, the objection to the medical examination was rejected, and the challenge based on privacy and bodily integrity was dismissed.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court reaffirmed that medical examinations of accused persons, including potency tests, can be conducted without consent when authorized by law and required for a criminal investigation. The Court clarified that such examinations do not automatically amount to a violation of privacy or bodily integrity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Name
Ebin A.V. v. State of Kerala
