Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 51
Examination of accused by medical practitioner at request of police officer
(1) When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of such a nature and alleged to have been committed under such circumstances that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of his person will afford evidence as to the commission of an offence, it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner, acting at the request of any police officer, and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his direction, to make such an examination of the person arrested as is reasonably necessary in order to ascertain the facts which may afford such evidence, and to use such force as is reasonably necessary for that purpose.
(2) Whenever the person of a female is to be examined under this section, the examination shall be made only by, or under the supervision of, a female registered medical practitioner.
(3) The registered medical practitioner shall, without any delay, forward the examination report to the investigating officer. Explanation.—In this section and sections 52 and 53,—
(a) “examination” shall include the examination of blood, blood stains, semen, swabs in case of sexual offences, sputum and sweat, hair samples and finger nail clippings by the use of modern and scientific techniques including DNA profiling and such other tests which the registered medical practitioner thinks necessary in a particular case;
(b) “registered medical practitioner” means a medical practitioner who possesses any medical qualification recognised under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (30 of 2019) and whose name has been entered in the National Medical Register or a State Medical Register under that Act.
Why this exists
Modern criminal investigation often relies on scientific evidence — blood, DNA, hair, or bodily fluids — that can confirm or rule out a suspect's involvement in a crime. This provision (carried forward from Section 53 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with added recognition of DNA profiling) gives police a lawful route to obtain such evidence through a doctor, instead of leaving it in a legal grey zone. The safeguards — female doctors for female arrestees, prompt reporting, and use of only 'reasonably necessary' force — aim to balance investigative needs against the arrested person's dignity and bodily autonomy.
How courts read it
Under the predecessor provision (Section 53 CrPC), courts including the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad held that taking bodily samples like blood or hair for identification/comparison does not amount to 'testimonial compulsion' and therefore does not violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). Later, in Selvi v. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court distinguished such physical samples from techniques like narco-analysis or brain mapping, holding that simple bodily examinations for evidence (blood, hair, etc.) are permissible, while more invasive mental-testimonial techniques require consent. These interpretations continue to guide how this provision is applied under the BNSS.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: This section forces the arrested person to confess or make a statement.
Fact: Courts have clarified that bodily examination for physical evidence (like blood or hair) is different from making a testimonial statement, so it does not violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). - Myth: Police can use any amount of force to carry out this examination.
Fact: The law explicitly limits force to what is 'reasonably necessary' to conduct the examination, not unlimited coercion. - Myth: Any doctor can examine a female arrestee under this section.
Fact: The law specifically requires that a female arrestee be examined only by, or under the supervision of, a female registered medical practitioner.