IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.68 OF 2016
Youth Bar
Association of India Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union of India and Others Respondent(s)
ORDER
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 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 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 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 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, 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 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment