Mandatory uploading of FIRs to state police websites – SC judgment to protect rights of accused

There were several High Court judgments where to protect the fundamental rights of the accused, directions were given to respective state police to upload the FIR to state police website within 24 hours or so of lodging of FIR.

Finally in 2016, in a PIL filed by Youth Bar Association of India, Supreme Court made it mandatory for all States’ police nationwide to upload copy of FIRs within 24-72 hours of lodging of FIR.  There are other directions too regarding how an accused can get certified copies of FIR.  The full judgment text is given below, with the paras containing directions regarding upload of FIRs (paras 12 and 13) made in bold:

WP(Crl.) 68/2016

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

                    WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.68 OF 2016

Youth Bar Association of India                       Petitioner(s)

                    Versus

Union of India and Others                            Respondent(s)

                           O R D E R
                  

             Issue Rule.

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

                            2

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

                           3

            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 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 110 (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

                           4

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.

                           5

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 twenty-four hours.

      (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,

                           6

      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

                           7

      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

                           8

       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 not beyond three days

      of the submission of the application.

      (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.

                                              …………………J.
                                               [Dipak Misra]

                                              …………………J.
                                               [C. Nagappan]

New Delhi
September 07, 2016.

                           9

ITEM NO.3               COURT NO.4               SECTION PIL(W)

        S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(s)(Criminal)  No(s).  68/2016

YOUTH BAR ASSOCIATION OF INDIA                     Petitioner(s)

                         VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                            Respondent(s)

(with appln. (s) for deletion of the name of respondent and
exemption from filing O.T. and office report)

Date : 07/09/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN

For Petitioner(s)        
              Ms. Manju Jetley,Adv.

For Respondent(s)
              Krishnayan Sen,Adv.
              Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv.
              Mr. G. Prakash,Adv.
              Mr. Parijat Sinha,Adv.
              Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv.
              Mr. Rohit K. Singh,Adv.
              Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv.
              Mr. Saurabh Trivedi,Adv.
              Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv.
              Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.

  UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                      O R D E R

              The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the
signed reportable judgment.

             All the interlocutory applications stand disposed
of.

                          10

         (Chetan Kumar)                         (H.S. Parasher)
          Court Master                             Court Master