The Telangana High Court has set aside a trial court order permitting a potency test of an accused in a sexual offence case, holding that medical and scientific tests of an accused cannot be ordered routinely or merely because the allegation is grave, and must meet the tests of relevance, necessity and proportionality.
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has set aside a trial court order that allowed the police to have an accused in a sexual offence case medically examined for a potency test, holding that such tests cannot be ordered routinely or mechanically, and that the trial court’s only reason, the gravity of the allegations and the investigating agency’s right to collect incriminating material, was contrary to settled principles [M. Uday Krishna Reddy v. State of Telangana and Another].
Justice J. Sreenivas Rao allowed the criminal petition on September 9, 2026, after reserving the order on September 1. The allegations against the petitioner are untested, he is presumed innocent, and the Court has expressed no view on their merits. The complainant is not named.
The case
The petitioner, described in the order as an IPS officer trainee, is accused in Crime No. 824 of 2026 of the Attapur Police Station, Hyderabad, registered on a complaint of July 18, 2026 under Sections 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 127(2), 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2008. On the complainant’s statement, offences under Sections 64(1) read with 63(b)(iii) and 109 of the BNS were later added. The prosecution’s case is that the alleged sexual assault involved penetration other than penile penetration, and it does not allege penile penetration.
On July 30, 2026, the prosecution sought seven days’ police custody of the petitioner, to recover a mobile phone and to conduct a potency test. On August 5, 2026, the trial court declined the potency test because the prosecution had given no reason for it or said how it would help the case, and granted two days’ police custody for recovery of the phone. On August 7, 2026, the prosecution filed a fresh petition under Section 52 read with Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking permission to produce the petitioner before a government hospital for a potency test. The trial court allowed it on August 17, 2026, saying the allegations were grave and the investigating agency could collect every incriminating material, and relying on the Bombay High Court’s decision in Alfred Fernandes and the Telangana High Court’s decision in Naveen Krishna Bothireddy.
What the parties argued
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate G. Ashok Reddy argued that the second petition was not maintainable, that the trial court gave no reasons, and that allowing it amounted to reviewing its earlier order of August 5, which had become final. He submitted that a potency test is not mandatory in every rape case, that Section 52 of the BNSS requires reasonable grounds to believe the examination will afford evidence of the offence, and that no nexus had been shown between the test and an alleged offence that did not involve penile penetration. He relied on R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha, the Madras High Court’s decision in Kajendran and the Supreme Court’s decision in Vikram Bakshi.
Public Prosecutor Palle Nageswara Rao submitted that the offence was grave, that the examination would show the petitioner’s capability to perform the alleged act, that the earlier order was no bar to the fresh petition, and that Section 52 permitted the examination. He relied on Chotkau, Siva Vallabhaneni and Rahul Agarwal. Senior Advocate L. Ravichander, for the complainant through Advocate Mayur Mundra, supported the trial court’s order.
The Court’s reasoning
Justice Rao reviewed the authorities. He noted that in Kajendran the Madras High Court held that male potency testing must not be insisted on as a routine requirement in sexual offence cases, and that in Archana Patil the Karnataka High Court held that a potency test may be resorted to only where there is a specific and compelling necessity. He noted that in R. Rajendran the Supreme Court held that DNA testing cannot be directed routinely because it seriously intrudes on bodily autonomy, privacy, liberty and dignity under Article 21, and must satisfy the tests of legality, legitimate aim and proportionality, with a direct and demonstrable nexus to the offence.
The Court drew the common principle from these decisions: medical or scientific examinations of an accused, including potency and DNA tests, cannot be ordered routinely or mechanically. They must rest on the facts of the particular case and meet the requirements of relevance, necessity and proportionality, while protecting the accused’s privacy, bodily autonomy, personal liberty and dignity. It added that a potency test is not a mandatory requirement in sexual offence cases, and that such tests must be case-specific, legally justified, genuinely necessary and proportionate.
The decisions relied on by the prosecution
The Court held that the decisions cited by the prosecution did not apply. It noted that there was no dispute that penetration other than penile penetration falls within the meaning of rape, no dispute about the statutory provisions that authorise medical examination of an accused, and no dispute that a potency test is not unconstitutional. The question was how the test would help the prosecution when its own case was one of non-penile penetration.
The Court observed that the prosecution had earlier sought the same relief and been refused for want of reasons, and that its second petition again gave no reasons, much less specific ones, as to why the test was required or how it would assist, and showed no changed circumstances. The trial court allowed it only because the allegations were grave and the agency could collect every incriminating material, and the Court held that this reasoning was contrary to the principles in Kajendran, R. Rajendran and Archana Patil.
The order
The criminal petition was allowed and the order of August 17, 2026 was set aside. The Court clarified that the order does not preclude the prosecution from filing an appropriate petition, if the necessity arises, in accordance with law. It also noted that, after the trial court’s order, the Investigating Officer had moved applications to correct the hospital named in it and to fix a fresh date for the test, and that one such application was pending.
Why it matters
The order applies the Supreme Court’s privacy and proportionality reasoning on DNA testing to potency tests in sexual offence cases, and makes clear that the seriousness of an allegation is not by itself a reason to order an intrusive examination. It requires the prosecution to explain, with specific reasons, how a test bears on the offence alleged, and it stresses that an earlier refusal cannot be circumvented by filing the same request again without new grounds.
The ruling is on the potency test only. It does not decide the allegations against the petitioner, and the investigation continues. The prosecution remains free to seek such a test again if it can show a genuine necessity.
Case Title: M. Uday Krishna Reddy v. State of Telangana and Another [Criminal Petition No. 13846 of 2026]
Bench: Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, Telangana High Court
Date of Order: September 9, 2026
Appearances: Advocate G. Ashok Reddy appeared for the petitioner, Public Prosecutor Palle Nageswara Rao appeared for the State, and Senior Advocate L. Ravichander, with Advocate Mayur Mundra, appeared for the complainant.
If you or someone you know is struggling, Tele-MANAS (14416) offers free mental health support.