Why in news?

Recently, the Supreme Court ordered the Ghaziabad Police to provide independent journalist Abhishek Upadhyay with a copy of the FIR and CCTV footage in a road-rage case registered against him.

Upadhyay, who had reported on alleged irregularities in donations to the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, claimed he was being falsely implicated over his reportage and that police had repeatedly denied him access to the FIR.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Background: Why the Court Had to Intervene?
• What Do Statutory Provisions Say?
• FIR Access: Judicial Precedents
• Why This Matters: Implications for the Accused

Background: Why the Court Had to Intervene?

• The sequence of events leading to the Supreme Court's intervention:
  • Upadhyay alleged that a police team arrived at his residence, informing him of a case registered at Indirapuram police station over road rage and abusive behaviour.
  • Despite repeated requests, police initially sent him a page containing neither the sections invoked nor details of the alleged offence.
  • Police later shared an older, unrelated FIR registered against him in Lucknow instead.
  • Upadhyay approached the Supreme Court, alleging the case was based on concocted allegations intended to harass him for his journalism.
  • He sought a copy of the FIR and quashing of proceedings, or alternatively, transfer of the probe to an independent agency.
• A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant directed the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner to provide the FIR and CCTV footage, and file a compliance report by September 7.
• The Court also protected Upadhyay from arrest and permitted him to approach the jurisdictional High Court for further relief.

What Do Statutory Provisions Say?

• The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) does not require police to furnish an FIR to the accused immediately upon registration:
  • Section 173(2): Requires a copy to be given "forthwith" and free of cost — but only to the informant or victim, not the accused.
  • Section 230: Requires the magistrate to furnish the accused with copies of prosecution documents, including the FIR and chargesheet, within 14 days of their appearance or production before the court.
• The BNSS is silent on an accused's right to access the FIR at any earlier stage, including during investigation
• Judicial precedents, however, have stepped in to recognise this right.

FIR Access: Judicial Precedents

• Court on its Own Motion v. State (Delhi HC, 2010): Laid down a mechanism for an accused to obtain an FIR during investigation, before the Section 230 stage. Directed Delhi Police to upload FIRs online within 24 hours of registration, with sensitive offences exempted via a reasoned decision by an officer not below DCP rank.
• Rama Nand Rathore v. State of Himachal Pradesh (HP HC, 2014): Held that a person who suspects they are named in an FIR can seek a certified copy, which police must supply within 24 hours; also mandated online publication within the same period, barring sensitive cases.
• Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India (SC, 2016): Extended these directives pan-India, reiterating that an accused is entitled to access the FIR before the Section 207 CrPC (now Section 230 BNSS) stage. The Court mandated:
  • FIRs uploaded on police websites within 24 hours of registration, or on the State government's official website where no police website exists.
  • Extension to 48 hours where unavoidable delays occur, or up to 72 hours for geographical connectivity issues.
• The 'Sensitive Offence' Exemption
  • The 2016 ruling carved out an exception to online publication for FIRs involving "sensitive" offences:
    • The Supreme Court identified sexual offences, cases under the POCSO Act, 2012, and terror offences as examples — clarifying the list is not exhaustive.
    • The decision to withhold an FIR cannot be taken by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) or equivalent.
    • An aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police or equivalent, who must constitute a three-member committee to decide the grievance within three days.
    • Even where withheld on sensitivity grounds, the accused or an authorised representative can apply to the magistrate (to whom the FIR has been forwarded) for a certified copy, which must be provided within three days.

Why This Matters: Implications for the Accused

• Police officials routinely fail to comply with the Supreme Court's directive to upload FIRs through the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS).
• Once an FIR is registered and criminal law is set in motion, the accused becomes entitled to pursue pre-trial remedies such as quashing of the FIR or anticipatory bail — but without access to the FIR, these remedies cannot be effectively exercised.
• The Supreme Court's ruling recognised a crucial principle: an accused cannot be made to wait until the framing of charges to learn the offences alleged against them, as this would undermine the right to a fair trial and principles of natural justice.