Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, a senior consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist at Cloudnine Hospital and the hospital company M/s Kids Clinic India Limited, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 528 BNSS before the High Court of Karnataka. They challenged eight police notices issued by the Station House Officer, Konanakunte Police Station, in connection with Unnatural Death Report (UDR) No.33 of 2026. The background involved a medical episode on 20-05-2026 when the first petitioner performed a hysteroscopic polypectomy on a 29-year-old patient, Smt. Spoorthi Chithriki, at Cloudnine Hospital. During the procedure, an unforeseen intra-operative complication arose, and despite resuscitative efforts, the patient could not be revived. The hospital informed the jurisdictional police the same day, and a UDR was registered under Section 194(3)(iv) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The deceased's husband also lodged a complaint. The hospital claimed complete cooperation with the investigation: it answered the first notice immediately, furnished documents, provided 36 sheets of inpatient records and a 64 GB pen-drive containing CCTV footage after a mahazar on 26-05-2026, and on 07-06-2026 handed over the entire unedited video recording of the surgery spanning 36 minutes and 22 seconds. Certified copies of medical records were supplied to the husband upon his request. However, on 23-06-2026, the police issued three separate notices under Section 94 BNSS: one requiring production of the unedited surgery video and physical production of digital operation theatre equipment, another demanding the very machine used during surgery, and a third summoning the first petitioner for recording of evidence. The petitioners contended that these repeated requisitions transgressed the permissible contours of a UDR enquiry and invoked the procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, arguing that doctors cannot be subjected to relentless investigative intrusion without material justifying criminal culpability. The hospital's representation to authorities received no response. The High Court passed interim orders on 03-07-2026 and 07-07-2026 directing the hospital to place on record the treatment rendered before the patient was shifted to Manipal Hospital and the post mortem report from KIMS Hospital. The matter was reserved for orders on 22-07-2026 and pronounced on 10-08-2026, but the final operative decision is not included in the available text. The core legal issues were the scope of police powers under Section 94 BNSS in a UDR inquiry and the applicability of Jacob Mathew safeguards to protect medical professionals from coercive investigation. The outcome remains undetermined from the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Unnatural Death Inquiry - Scope of Police Powers under BNSS - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 94, 179, 194(3)(iv) - The case concerned repeated notices under Section 94 BNSS directed to a doctor and hospital during a UDR inquiry following a patient's death during surgery; the court was called upon to consider whether the notices exceeded permissible limits and whether Jacob Mathew safeguards applied - The excerpt did not include the final holding; interim orders required the hospital to place treatment records and post mortem report (Paras 2.1-3.1). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India - Petition sought writ of certiorari to quash police notices and writ of mandamus to enforce procedural safeguards - Court exercised jurisdiction to issue interim directions pending final disposal - Final decision on quashing not included in the provided text (Paras 3-3.1). C) Medical Law - Medical Negligence Inquiry - Procedural Safeguards for Doctors - Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1 - Petitioners contended that doctors cannot be subjected to relentless investigative intrusion in the absence of any material justifying criminal culpability and sought observance of paragraph 53 safeguards - The court was asked to direct compliance, but the final holding was not included in the excerpt (Paras 2.6-3.1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether repeated notices issued under Sections 94 and 179 BNSS in an Unnatural Death Report (UDR) inquiry against a doctor and hospital were permissible, and whether procedural safeguards laid down in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab applied to the inquiry.
Law Points
- Procedural safeguards in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab
- (2005) 6 SCC 1
- scope of Section 94 BNSS summons in UDR inquiry
- UDR registration under Section 194(3)(iv) BNSS
- writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 Constitution
- protection against relentless investigative intrusion absent material of criminal culpability.
