Delhi HC Stays 'Fake Degree' FIR, Questions Police's 'Roving Inquiry' Under BNSS

New Delhi – In a significant order highlighting the tension between police investigative powers and institutional privacy, the Delhi High Court has suspended all proceedings in an FIR concerning an alleged cash-for-degree racket. The stay was granted in a writ petition filed by GLOCAL University, which challenged a wide-ranging notice from the Delhi Police under Section 94 of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The order, passed by Justice Arun Monga, puts a temporary halt to the Delhi Police's investigation, which stemmed from an FIR registered on June 6 at the Cyber Crime Police Station. The court found prima facie merit in the university's arguments that the police notice constituted a "roving inquiry" and that a parallel investigation based on similar allegations, initiated by the university itself, was already underway in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh.

The case, titled GLOCAL UNIVERSITY THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE v/s STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) , presents a critical early test for the scope of Section 94 of the BNSS and raises fundamental questions about parallel criminal proceedings and the protection of personal data during investigations.

---

Background of the Twin FIRs

The legal battle originates from two separate First Information Reports (FIRs) addressing the same core issue: the circulation of forged degrees bearing GLOCAL University's name.

The university took the first step. On January 28, it lodged a complaint with the Saharanpur police, alleging that unknown individuals were defrauding the public by issuing fake degrees and mark sheets, thereby tarnishing the institution's reputation. Following perceived inaction, the university approached a Magistrate Court in Saharanpur. On September 1, the court directed the police to register an FIR, which was subsequently filed on September 9 under Sections 318(4) (cheating), 319(2) (cheating by personation) of the BNS, 2023, and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2008.

However, months before the Saharanpur FIR was formally registered, the Delhi Police initiated its own investigation. On June 6, based on "trap proceedings," it registered FIR No. 140/2025 at the Cyber Crime Police Station. This FIR alleged a widespread "cash-for-degree" scam in the Delhi-NCR region, implicating several educational institutions in providing back-dated degrees for money. The charges invoked were severe, including sections of the BNS related to cheating, multiple forms of forgery, possession and use of forged documents, and criminal conspiracy.

It was pursuant to this Delhi-based FIR that the police issued the contentious notice under Section 94/95 of the BNSS on September 18, demanding extensive data from GLOCAL University.

---

The Challenge: 'Roving Inquiry' vs. Right to Privacy

Appearing for the petitioner university, Advocate Aadil Singh Boparai launched a multi-pronged attack on the Delhi Police's actions. He vehemently argued that GLOCAL University, an autonomous body established by legislation, had no criminal involvement in the alleged racket. Instead, he positioned the university as a victim that had proactively sought legal recourse against the fraudsters in Saharanpur.

The core of Boparai's argument was that the Section 94 BNSS notice was a classic example of a "roving and fishing inquiry," far exceeding the legitimate scope of investigation. He detailed how the police demanded a vast trove of information concerning the university's daily operations, including confidential personal and professional records of its officials, employees, and thousands of students.

Boparai contended that this overbroad demand was not only legally untenable but also posed a grave threat to fundamental rights. He argued that compliance would lead to a massive infringement on the privacy rights of students and staff, creating a risk of significant data breaches. The potential downstream consequences, he submitted, could be catastrophic for students' careers and the university's academic integrity.

---

High Court's Prima Facie Observations

Justice Arun Monga’s order indicates that the court was persuaded by the petitioner's preliminary arguments. The court made two crucial prima facie observations that formed the basis for granting the interim stay.

First, the court acknowledged the existence of two parallel investigations. It noted, "Prima facie, it appears from the record that based on the same set of allegations, i.e., fabricated/fake degrees being used/issued by and/or to certain students, masquerading themselves to have obtained the same from the Petitioner University, two FIRs on same cause are currently registered." This observation implicitly questions the necessity and legality of the second FIR registered in Delhi when proceedings on the university's own complaint were already pending.

Second, the court critically examined the challenged notice itself. Concurring with the petitioner's counsel, the court stated, "Bare reading of the same reflects that roving inquires have been made from university, some of which have no concern with the allegation of fabrication of the degrees." This finding lends judicial weight to the argument that the police's demand for information was disproportionate and not directly tethered to the specific allegations in the FIR.

Based on these observations, Justice Monga issued notice to the state and, while the state's counsel argued that the Delhi FIR was based on a "different set of allegations," the court ordered a suspension of all further proceedings in the Delhi FIR until the next hearing.

---

Legal Implications and Analysis

This case carries significant implications for criminal procedure and constitutional law, particularly under the new criminal codes.

1. Interpreting Section 94 BNSS: Section 94 BNSS, which empowers police to summon documents and electronic devices, is a potent investigative tool. This case will likely contribute to the jurisprudence defining its boundaries. The court's "roving inquiry" remark suggests that any notice under this section must demonstrate a clear and rational nexus between the information sought and the specific offense being investigated. It cannot be used as a dragnet to collect extraneous data.

2. Doctrine Against Double Jeopardy and Parallel Investigations: While not strictly a case of double jeopardy (which applies post-trial), the principle of fairness against being vexed by multiple proceedings for the same cause is a cornerstone of criminal justice. The court's focus on the "same set of allegations" in two FIRs signals a disapproval of duplicative and potentially conflicting investigations, which can be harassing and waste judicial and state resources.

3. Data Privacy in Criminal Probes: The arguments centered on the privacy of thousands of students and employees underscore the growing importance of the right to privacy as a check on state power. The case highlights the need for law enforcement agencies to adopt a targeted and minimalist approach when demanding sensitive personal data from large institutions, balancing investigative needs with the constitutional right to privacy established in K.S. Puttaswamy .

The Delhi High Court's interim order provides substantial relief to GLOCAL University, protecting it from what it terms an overzealous investigation. The court has directed the Delhi Police to file a reply, and the matter is scheduled for the next hearing on December 2, when these critical legal questions will be further debated. The final outcome will be closely watched by legal professionals, educational institutions, and civil liberties advocates alike.