46. Keeping in view the law in the field, the entitlement of the accused, the mechanism suggested by the learned Additional Solicitor General as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner and regard being had to the concept of striking of balance, as had been referred to earlier, we proceed to record our conclusions and the directions as enumerated below:
(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 FIR, unless reasons recorded regard being had to the nature of the offence that the same is sensitive in nature, should be uploaded on the Delhi Police website within twenty-four hours oflodging of the FIR 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.(E) The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website of Delhi Police shall not be taken by an officer below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police and that too by way of a speaking order. A decision so taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Police shall also be duly communicated to the Area 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.(G) 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 with the Commissioner of Police who shall constitute a committee of three high officers and the committee shall deal with the said grievance within three days from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate it to the grieved person.(H) The Commissioner of Police shall constitute the committee within eight weeks from today.(I) 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.(J) The directions for uploading the FIR on the website of the Delhi Police shall be given effect from 1st February, 2011.
47. A copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner of Police to take appropriate action to effectuate the directions in an apposite manner so that grievances of this nature do not travel to court.
1. The fundamental issue that has emerged for consideration in this writ petition that has been instituted on the basis of a letter sent to this Court is whether an accused is entitled to a copy of the First Information Report after it is lodged and if so, what steps are required to be taken to facilitate its availability as the liberty of an individual is inextricably linked with his right to be aware how he has been booked under law and on what allegations. Liberty and freedom are the strongest passion of men and many have sacrificed their lives for the cause of liberty. No one has ever conceived it as an arduous contrivance, a distant notion to be achieved by fortunate moments but as a basic human right. Liberty and life are in wedlock in a civilized society with the pledge not to tolerate the idea of separation. Jose‘ Marti has described liberty thus:
Like bone to the human body, and the axle to the wheel, and the song to a bird, and air to the wing, thus is liberty the essence of life.
25. The situation can be viewed from the constitutional perspective. Article 21 of the Constitution of India uses the expression "personal liberty‘.The said expression is not restricted to freedom from physical restraint but includes a full range of rights which has been interpreted and conferred by the Apex Court in a host of decisions. It is worth noting, the great philosopher Socrates gave immense emphasis on 'personal liberty‘. The State has a sacrosanct duty to preserve the liberties of citizens and every act touching the liberty of a citizen has to be tested on the anvil and touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, both substantive and also on the canons of procedural or adjective law. Article 22 of the Constitution of India also has significant relevance in the present context inasmuch as it deals with protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. xxx
26. The Constitution Bench in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 has held thus:
26. … No doubt can linger after the decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, that in order to meet the challenge of Article 21 of the Constitution, the procedure established by law for depriving a person of his liberty must be fair, just and reasonable. Section 438, in the form in which it is conceived by the legislature, is open to no exception on the ground that it prescribes a procedure which is unjust or unfair. We ought, at all costs, to avoid throwing it open to a Constitutional challenge by reading words in it which are not to be found therein.
27. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, it has been held thus:
…the issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process…. After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of procedure established by law. The last four words of Article 21 are the life of that human right.
28. In Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsingh Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2005) 5 SCC 294, while reiterating that presumption of innocence is a human right, the three-Judge Bench has held thus:
35. …Article 21 in view of its expansive meaning not only protects life and liberty but also envisages a fair procedure. Liberty of a person should not ordinarily be interfered with unless there exit cogent grounds therefor.
29. In State of West Bengal and others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others, (2010) 3 SCC 571, the Apex Court has expressed thus:
68(ii) 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.
30. In Narendra Singh and another v. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 699, the Apex Court has observed that presumption of innocence is a human right.
31. In this context, we may refer with profit the decision in Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka, (2008) 3 SCC 753, wherein it has been stated thus:
46. The right of 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 to Charles Dickens‘s 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.
32. The Apex Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610, while emphasizing on personal liberty in a civilized society on the backdrop of constitutional philosophy especially enshrined under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India, has expressed thus:
22. … The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected. We cannot wish away the problem. Any form of torture or 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 anarchism. No civilised nation can permit that to 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 cord 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 convicts, undertrials, detenus and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law.
In the said case, regard being had to the difficulties faced by the accused persons and keeping in view the concept that the action of the State must be "right, just and fair" and that there should not be any kind of torture, their Lordships issued the following directions:
36. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures:
(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.
(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.
(3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation center or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.
(4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.
(5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.
(6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.
(7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any, present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The 'Inspection Memo' must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.
(8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the concerned State or Union Territory, Director, Health Services should prepare such a penal for all Tehsils and Districts as well.(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his record.(10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.
33. Recently, in the decision rendered in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Appeal No.2271/2010 decided on 2.12.2010), the Apex Court, while dealing with the concept of liberty, has opined thus:(11) A police control room should be provided at all district and state headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.
41. All human beings are born with some unalienable rights like life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The importance of these natural rights can be found in the fact that these are fundamental for their proper existence and no other right can be enjoyed without the presence of right to life and liberty.
42. Life bereft of liberty would be without honour and dignity and it would lose all significance and meaning and the life itself would not be worth living. That is why "liberty" is called the very quintessence of a civilized existence.43. Origin of "liberty"' can be traced in the ancient Greek civilization. The Greeks distinguished between the liberty of the group and the liberty of the individual. In 431 B.C., an Athenian statesman described that the concept of liberty was the outcome of two notions, firstly, protection of group from attack and secondly, the ambition of the group to realize itself as fully as possible through the self-realization of the individual by way of human reason. Greeks assigned the duty of protecting their liberties to the State. According to Aristotle, as the state was a means to fulfil certain fundamental needs of human nature and was a means for development of individuals' personality in association of fellow citizens so it was natural and necessary to man. Plato found his "republic" as the best source for the achievement of the self-realization of the people.
After so holding, their Lordships referred to various jurisprudential thought expounded by eminent jurists which we think it condign to reproduce:
53. Roscoe Pound, an eminent and one of the greatest American Law Professors aptly observed in his book "The Development of Constitutional Guarantee of Liberty" that whatever, `liberty' may mean today, the liberty is guaranteed by our bills of rights, "is a reservation to the individual of certain fundamental reasonable expectations involved in life in civilized society and a freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the power and authority of those who are designated or chosen in a politically organized society to adjust that society to individuals."
54. Blackstone in "Commentaries on the Laws of England", Vol.I, p.134 aptly observed that "Personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation or moving one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law". X X X X X X X X X
57. Eminent former Judge of this Court, Justice H.R. Khanna in a speech as published in 2 IJIL, Vol.18 (1978), p.133 observed that "liberty postulates the creation of a climate wherein there is no suppression of the human spirits, wherein, there is no denial of the opportunity for the full growth of human personality, wherein head is held high and there is no servility of the human mind or enslavement of the human body".
Thereafter, their Lordships referred to life and liberty under our Constitution and opined thus:
61. Life and personal liberty are the most prized possessions of an individual. The inner urge for freedom is a natural phenomenon of every human being. Respect for life, liberty and property is not merely a norm or a policy of the State but an essential requirement of any civilized society.
In this regard, we think it seemly to reproduce paragraphs 71 and 72 of the said decision:
71. The object of Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty in any manner. Article 21 is repository of all human rights essentially for a person or a citizen. A fruitful and meaningful life presupposes full of dignity, honour, health and welfare. In the modern "Welfare Philosophy", it is for the State to ensure these essentials of life to all its citizens, and if possible to non-citizens. While invoking the provisions of Article 21, and by referring to the oft-quoted statement of Joseph Addision, "Better to die ten thousand deaths than wound my honour", the Apex court in Khedat Mazdoor Chetana Sangath v. State of M.P. and Others (1994) 6 SCC 260 posed to itself a question "If dignity or honour vanishes what remains of life"? This is the significance of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India in its third part.
72. This court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and Another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another (1986) 3 SCC 156 observed that the law must respond and be responsive to the felt and discernible compulsions of circumstances that would be equitable, fair and justice, and unless there is anything to the contrary in the statute, Court must take cognizance of that fact and act accordingly.
34. From the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is graphically vivid that fair and impartial investigation is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and presumption as regards the innocence of an accused is a humanright. Therefore, a person who is booked under criminal law has a right to know the nature of allegations so that he can take necessary steps to safeguard his liberty. It is imperative in a country governed by Rule of Law as crusaders of liberty have pronounced 'Give me liberty, or give me death‘. Not for nothing it has been said that when a dent is created in the spine of liberty, it leads to a rainbow of chaos.