Case Summary
| Citation | Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India(2016) 9 SCC 473 |
| Keywords | FIR, Online, Mandamus, Writ, Article 32, Article 21, Article 22(1), |
| Facts | In this writ petition, preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Youth Bar Association of India, has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Union of India and the States to upload each and every First Information Report registered in all the police stations within the territory of India in the official website of the police of all States, as early as possible, preferably within 24 hours from the time of registration. |
| Issues | |
| Contentions | 1. that after registration of the First Information Report if it is uploaded in the official website of police, that will solve many unnecessary problems faced by the accused persons and their family members. Learned counsel would contend that when the criminal law is set in motion and liberty of an individual is at stake, he should have the information so that he can take necessary steps to protect his liberty. 2. that Central Government is supporting all the states to set up a mechanism for online filing of complaints under the protect ‘Crime & Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS)’.” 3. that the First Information Report in respect of certain offences which are registered, like sexual offences and the offences registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), may be difficult to be put on the website. 4. that insurgency would be a sensitive matter and, that apart, it may not be possible on the part of the States of Meghalay, Mizoram and Sikkim, to upload the First Information Reports within 24 hours. |
| Law Points | Section 154, 207 CrPC, Article 32, Article 21, Article 22(1) Constitution of India. |
| Judgement | The court laid down the directions for uploading the FIR within 24 hours of registration of the same and made them effective from 15.11.2016 1. Accused is entitled to get a copy 2. On application with fee, accused on suspicion is entitled to get certified copy within 24 hours. 3. Certified copy can be obtained from court on application within two days, if police has forwarded the same to the Magistrate. 4. The copies of the FIRs, unless the offence is sensitive in nature, like sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under POCSO Act and such other offences, should be uploaded on the police website, and if there is no such website, on the official website of the State Government, within twenty-four hours of the registration of the First Information Report so that the accused or any person connected with the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application before the Court as per law for redressal of his grievances. 5. The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website shall not be taken by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any person holding equivalent post. 6. If an FIR is not uploaded, needless to say, it shall not enure per se a ground to obtain the benefit under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority | State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others (2010) 3 SCC 571, Som Mittal vs. Government of Karnataka (2008) 3 SCC 753 D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610 Court on its Own Motion through Mr. Ajay Chaudhary vs. State (2010) 175 DLT (DB). Article 21 of the Constitution |
Full Case Details
DIPAK MISRA AND C. NAGAPPAN , JJ.
ORDER
2. In this writ petition, preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner,
Youth Bar Association of India, has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus,
directing the Union of India and the States to upload each and every First Information Report
registered in all the police stations within the territory of India in the official website of the
police of all States, as early as possible, preferably within 24 hours from the time of registration.
3. After the writ petition was entertained by this Court, notices were issued to the Union of
India and the States.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
that after registration of the First Information Report if it is uploaded in the official website of
police, that will solve many unnecessary problems faced by the accused persons and their
family members. Learned counsel would contend that when the criminal law is set in motion
and liberty of an individual is at stake, he should have the information so that he can take
necessary steps to protect his liberty. In this context, he has drawn our attention to a passage
from the judgment rendered in State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection
of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others (2010) 3 SCC 571, wherein it has been
observed:-
“Article 21 of the Constitution in its broad perspective seeks to protect the persons of their
lives and personal liberties except according to the procedure established by law. The said
Article in its broad application not only takes within its fold enforcement of the rights of an
accused but also the rights of the victim. The State has a duty to enforce the human rights of a
citizen providing for fair and impartial investigation against any person accused of commission
of a cognizable offence, which may include its own officers. In certain situations even a witness
to the crime may seek for and shall be granted protection by the State.”
5. In Som Mittal vs. Government of Karnataka (2008) 3 SCC 753, the Court has ruled thus:-
“The right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is a valuable right, and hence should
not be lightly interfered with. It was won by the people of Europe and America after tremendous
historical struggles and sacrifices. One is reminded of Charles Dickens novel `A Tale of Two
Cities in which Dr. Manette was incarcerated in the Bastille for 18 years on a mere lettre de
cachet of a French aristocrat, although he was innocent.”
6. In D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610 it has been opined that:-
“The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution required to be jealously and
scrupulously protected. We cannot wish away the problem. Any form of torture of cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the
Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. If the
16
functionaries of the Government become law breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law
and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto
himself thereby leading to anarchanism. No civilised nation can permit that tp happen. Does a
citizen shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a policeman arrests him? Can the
right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest? These questions touch the spinal court
of human rights jurisprudence. The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic ‘No’. The precious
right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicted
undertrials, detenues and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure
established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law.”
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to a Division Bench decision
of Delhi High Court rendered in Court on its Own Motion through Mr. Ajay Chaudhary vs.
State (2010) 175 DLT (DB).
8. On being asked, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
Union of India, has submitted that the directions issued by the High Court of Delhi can be
applied with certain modifications. Learned Additional Solicitor General has also drawn our
attention to paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in an interlocutory application in the present writ
petition. The said paragraph reads as under:-
“4. That is it respectfully submitted that Central Government is supporting all the states to set
up a mechanism for online filing of complaints under the protect ‘Crime & Criminal Tracking
Network & Systems (CCTNS)’.”
9. Mr. Saurabh Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttarakhand has submitted
that the First Information Report in respect of certain offences which are registered, like sexual
offences and the offences registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), may be difficult to be put on the website.
10. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Mr. Shikhar Garg, and Mr. Yusuf Khan, learned counsel appearing
for the States of Meghalaya, Mizoram and Sikkim respectively, have submitted that insurgency
would be a sensitive matter and, that apart, it may not be possible on the part of the said States
to upload the First Information Reports within 24 hours.
11. Mr. Uddyam Mukherji, learned counsel appearing for the State of Odisha has submitted
that whether a matter is sensitive or not, the Court may say no reasons should be given because
the allegation in the F.I.R. shall speak for itself.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we think it appropriate to record the requisite
conclusions and, thereafter, proceed to issue the directions:-
(a) An accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report at an earlier stage than
as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
(b) An accused who has reasons to suspect that he has been roped in a criminal case and his
name may be finding place in a First Information Report can submit an application through his
representative/agent/parokar for grant of a certified copy before the concerned police officer or
to the Superintendent of Police on payment of such fee which is payable for obtaining such a
copy from the Court. On such application being made, the copy shall be supplied within twentyfour hours.
17
17
(c) Once the First Information Report is forwarded by the police station to the concerned
Magistrate or any Special Judge, on an application being filed for certified copy on behalf of
the accused, the same shall be given by the Court concerned within two working days. The
aforesaid direction has nothing to do with the statutory mandate inhered under Section 207 of
the Cr.P.C.
(d) The copies of the FIRs, unless the offence is sensitive in nature, like sexual offences,
offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under POCSO Act
and such other offences, should be uploaded on the police website, and if there is no such
website, on the official website of the State Government, within twenty-four hours of the
registration of the First Information Report so that the accused or any person connected with
the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application before the Court as per law for
redressal of his grievances. It may be clarified here that in case there is connectivity problems
due to geographical location or there is some other unavoidable difficulty, the time can be
extended up to forty-eight hours. The said 48 hours can be extended maximum up to 72 hours
and it is only relatable to connectivity problems due to geographical location.
(e) The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website shall not be taken by an
officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any person holding equivalent
post. In case, the States where District Magistrate has a role, he may also assume the said
authority. A decision taken by the concerned police officer or the District Magistrate shall be
duly communicated to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.
(f) The word ‘sensitive’ apart from the other aspects which may be thought of being sensitive
by the competent authority as stated hereinbefore would also include concept of privacy regard
being had to the nature of the FIR. The examples given with regard to the sensitive cases are
absolutely illustrative and are not exhaustive.
(g) If an FIR is not uploaded, needless to say, it shall not enure per se a ground to obtain the
benefit under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
(h) In case a copy of the FIR is not provided on the ground of sensitive nature of the case, a
person grieved by the said action, after disclosing his identity, can submit a representation to
the Superintendent of Police or any person holding the equivalent post in the State. The
Superintendent of Police shall constitute a committee of three officers which shall deal with the
said grievance. As far as the Metropolitan cities are concerned, where Commissioner is there,
if a representation is submitted to the Commissioner of Police who shall constitute a committee
of three officers. The committee so constituted shall deal with the grievance within three days
from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate it to the grieved person.
(i) The competent authority referred to hereinabove shall constitute the committee, as directed
herein-above, within eight weeks from today.
(j) In cases wherein decisions have been taken not to give copies of the FIR regard being had
to the sensitive nature of the case, it will be open to the accused/his authorized
representative/parokar to file an application for grant of certified copy before the Court to which
the FIR has been sent and the same shall be provided in quite promptitude by the concerned
Court qqqqqqqnot beyond three days of the submission of the application.
18
(k) The directions for uploading of FIR in the website of all the States shall be given effect
from 15th November, 2016.
13. Let a copy of this order be sent to all the Home Secretaries and the Director Generals of
Police of the States concerned.
14. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
