This Case Commenatary is written by Ishita, a Second-Year Law Student of Law Centre-2, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

Petitioner: Youth Bar Association of India
Respondent: Union of India
Date of Judgement: 7th September,2016
Bench: Justice M Khanwilkar, Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Mishra
Citation: AIR 2016 SC 4136
Court: Supreme Court of India

Background

In this case, a petition under Article 32 of the constitution is filed by the appellant of the Youth Bar Association had petitioned writ of Mandamus, for guiding the Union of India and all the states to transfer every FIR i.e. first information report in all the police headquarters inside the domain of India on the official site of police ideally inside 24 hours from the hour of enlistment of the FIR. Since the matter is in good governance and the infringement of the Right to live with dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present Writ Petition is maintainable.

Facts of the case

A writ petition has been filed by the applicant in the public interest according to Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue an appropriate writ of Mandamus. The petitioner further claims to pass an order or direction directing the respondents to upload every “first information report” lodged in all the police stations within the territory of India in the official websites of the police of all states. The petitioner also claims that further such FIR be uploaded as early as possible, preferably within 24 hours from the time of lodging.

Petitioner’s Argument

1. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after registration of the FIR, if the FIR is uploaded online, it will solve many unnecessary problems faced by the accused and their family members. When the liberty of an individual is at stake, he should have the information so that he can take the necessary steps to protect his liberty.

2. Article 21 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.

3. The right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is valuable, and hence should not be lightly interfered with.

4. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials, detainees, and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law.

Respondent’s Argument

1. The guidance for UOI presented that the headings given by the high court of Delhi can be applied with specific adjustments.

2. The insight showing up for the state of Uttarakhand presented that FIR regarding specific offenses that are enrolled, such as sexual offenses and the offenses under POCSO might be hard to put on the site.

3. The direction showing up for Northeastern conditions of Mizoram, Sikkim, and Meghalaya presented that revolt would be a touchy issue and it would not be conceivable on some portion of the said states to transfer the first information report within twenty-four hours.

4. article 21 of the constitution in its wide point of view tries to secure a person’s personal life and his liberty with the deviation of as indicated by methodology built up by law. The said article in its expansive application not just takes inside its crease authorization of the privileges of a blamed yet additionally the rights for the person in question.

Judgment

Supreme Court Directions and Guidelines Issued:

1. A blamed is qualified to get a copy of the FIR at the beginning phase as recommended under section 207 of the CrPC, 1973.

2. The duplicates of the FIR, except if the offense is touchy in nature like sexual offenses relating to rebellion fear mongering and of that classification, offenses under POCSO Act, 2012 and such different offenses ought to be transfer on the police site.

3. The choice not to transfer the duplicate of the FIR on the site will not be taken by an official beneath the position of DSP or any individual holding proportionate post.

4. The regulation for transferring of first information report in the site of a considerable number of states will be given impact from 15th November 2016.

Critical Analysis

The supreme court mandate concerning transferring the first information report on the site of state police is a healthy change in the criminal procedure’s mechanicalize. It planned for advancing brief activity, straightforwardness, and control discretion. It fundamentally protected the interests of blamed people.

The court’s judgment likewise profited the survivors of wrongdoing who have no methods for becoming more acquainted with whether their grievance had been welcomed on record or not. The Indian police office is known for its questionable record of stifling wrongdoing. The viewpoint of the court’s remedy makes it hard for station house officials to overlook wrongdoing, a typical practice embraced with the end goal of helping a guilty party or dressing police insights up so they cover the smallest ascent in wrongdoing.

The court explained that if there are availability issues because of the topographical area or there are some other unavoidable circumstances, the time can be reached up to forty-eight hours. The said forty- eight hours can be stretched out greatest if seventy- two hours and it is just relatable to availability issues because of topographical area.

References:

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151036912/ accessed on 23 September,2024

2. https://main.sci.gov.in/pdf/cir/2016-09-07_1473255359.pdf accessed on 23 September,2024

https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15272/1/the_code_of_criminal_procedure,_1973.pdfaccessed on 23 September,2024