Madras High Court has strongly condemned the routine and mechanical use of potency tests in sexual offence cases, calling them unscientific and illegal. The Court has directed police and courts to stop insisting on potency tests and reaffirmed that such medical examinations have no legal or forensic value in proving or disproving sexual offences.
Table of contents [Show]
On 7 February 2025, the Madras High Court delivered a crucial order that directly confronts one of the most persistent and unscientific practices in sexual offence investigations in India, namely the routine and mechanical conduct of potency tests on accused persons. The Division Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice Sunder Mohan was compelled to intervene after repeatedly noticing that despite earlier directions and existing Standard Operating Procedures, police and even courts continue to insist on potency tests as a matter of routine in cases involving sexual offences.
This order is a continuation of the Court’s earlier rulings dated 14 August 2023 and 15 July 2024 and reflects growing judicial concern over the misuse of medical examinations that have no scientific or legal relevance.
A potency test is a medical examination traditionally conducted to assess whether a male accused is capable of performing sexual intercourse. For decades, this test has been routinely demanded by investigating agencies under the mistaken belief that it has evidentiary value in rape or sexual assault cases.
In reality, modern forensic medicine and criminal jurisprudence have long recognized that the ability or inability to perform sexual intercourse has no bearing on whether a sexual offence has occurred. A person who is medically “potent” may choose not to commit an offence, and a person who is medically “impotent” may still commit sexual assault using other means. The test therefore does not prove or disprove the commission of the crime.
The Madras High Court took serious note of the fact that police officers continue to send accused persons for potency testing as a routine step in investigation. Even more troubling was the Court’s observation that some subordinate courts insist on the production of a potency test report before they are willing to take the police final report on file.
The Court clearly held that such practices are illegal, unscientific, and contrary to established medical and legal principles. It observed that its earlier orders and the SOP issued by the Medical Department have not properly percolated down to the police and subordinate judiciary.
To put an end to this practice, the High Court directed the Director General of Police to issue a fresh circular to all police officers handling POCSO and sexual offence cases, instructing them not to insist on conducting potency tests on accused persons.
The Court also issued a categorical direction that Special Courts and all other courts dealing with sexual offences against women must not insist on potency tests. To ensure compliance, the Court ordered that copies of its earlier orders and the present order must be circulated to all Principal District Judges and placed before all Special Courts and trial courts dealing with sexual offences.
From a forensic medicine perspective, potency is not a fixed or absolute condition. Sexual capability varies with age, mental state, stress, illness, intoxication, and situational factors. More importantly, sexual assault does not require penile penetration in all cases. Many forms of sexual violence can be committed without penile erection or even without using genital organs at all.
Therefore, a medical opinion stating that a person is “potent” or “impotent” does not assist the court in deciding whether a crime occurred. At best, such a test is a meaningless ritual. At worst, it is a violation of bodily privacy and medical ethics.
Compelling an accused to undergo a medically unnecessary examination raises serious ethical concerns. It reduces medical professionals to instruments of a flawed investigative process and forces them to perform tests that have no diagnostic or evidentiary value.
The Court’s intervention also indirectly protects doctors from being pressured by police or courts into conducting legally and scientifically unjustified examinations.
This order marks an important step in cleansing the criminal justice system of colonial era and pseudo scientific practices that continue purely out of habit. It reinforces the principle that medical examinations in criminal cases must be based on scientific necessity and legal relevance, not on tradition or superstition.
For forensic doctors, this judgment provides strong legal backing to refuse potency tests that are ordered mechanically and without any specific medical or legal justification.
The clear takeaway from this judgment is that potency tests have no place in routine sexual offence investigations. Police officers must stop requisitioning them, courts must stop demanding them, and doctors must stop performing them. Any continuation of this practice is now in direct violation of binding High Court directions and exposes the authorities concerned to serious judicial consequences.
Rajasthan High Court enhances compensation to ₹78 lakh in a 2015 accident death of a final year MBBS student. Court fixed ₹50,000 notional income recognising the future earning potential of a young doctor and rejecting the argument that a student had no income. A significant judgment in motor accident compensation law.
A Chennai doctor earning nearly ₹7 lakh per month is at the centre of a major legal debate after a corporate hospital moved court claiming about ₹42 lakh over notice period dues when he joined another hospital. During the hearing, the Madras HC strongly questioned non compete and non solicitation clauses in doctor contracts, calling them unlawful and raising concerns about growing corporatisation.
A liposuction death in Delhi has reached the High Court, exposing delays by medical regulators and raising serious questions about safety in cosmetic surgery. The court has directed the NMC to conclude the long pending inquiry within six months. The case highlights accountability gaps, emergency preparedness and standards of care in aesthetic practice.
