Back
High Court Puts Portal Fees Under Scrutiny: Decide Now or Face the Music
In a swift procedural move, the has directed the Punjab government to address a public interest litigation challenging hefty service charges for downloading First Information Reports (FIRs) and Daily Diary Reports (DDRs) from the 's SAANJH portal. The bench, led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, disposed of the PIL filed by Abhishek Malhotra and another, without delving into merits, but with a firm 30-day deadline for a reasoned decision on the petitioners' representation.
From Free Justice to Paywall: The Spark of the PIL
The controversy erupted when petitioner Abhishek Malhotra, appearing in person via video conference, was charged Rs 80 to download FIR No. 0014/2026 on . This prompted a representation (Annexure P-4) emailed to the Home Affairs and Justice Department and the Director General of Police, Punjab—still pending at the time of filing CWP-PIL-76 of 2026.
The petitioners sought broader relief: quashing an allegedly unpublished policy imposing Rs 80 for FIRs, Rs 100 for DDRs, and Rs 30 for lost receipt info; restoring free digital access ; ensuring compliance with , Rule 24.5 of Rules, 1934 ; and a refund of the fee paid, plus 12% interest. They invoked Supreme Court directives from the Youth Bar Association case, mandating online availability of FIRs.
As reported in legal circles, this echoes growing concerns over
"High Court Directs Punjab Govt To Decide Plea Against Charges For Downloading FIRs From SAANJH Portal,"
highlighting tensions between police digitization and public access rights.
Petitioner's Case: No Fee for Fundamental Right
Malhotra argued the charges violate statutory mandates for free FIR access. requires police to provide FIR copies, reinforced by Rules and SC guidelines for uploading FIRs online without cost. The policy's absence from official websites was flagged as arbitrary, turning a public document into a paid service and undermining transparency in criminal justice.
No detailed counter-arguments from the State of Punjab appeared in the judgment, with present but the focus remaining on the pending representation.
Decoding the Law: Precedents and Principles at Play
The court's restraint underscores procedural fairness, avoiding merits while enforcing accountability. Central precedents include the Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India (2016), where the Supreme Court ordered FIR uploads on police websites with free public access to prevent tampering and ensure speed. Rule 24.5 of the 1934 Rules likely pertains to information dissemination, aligning with BNSS provisions for victim/complainant copies.
This PIL tests the balance: digitization costs versus the right to information under , distinguishing mandatory free physical copies from potential online fees—yet unresolved here.
Key Observations
"The has been filed raising the alleged public cause and seeking... issuance of a for quashing the notification/Policy... of imposing an amount to Rs.80/- service charge for downloading FIR’s..."
"In view of above, this Court directs the Competent Authority to consider and decide the representation dated (Annexure P-4) by passing a in accordance with law within a period of 30 days..."
"With aforesaid direction and liberty, present petition stands disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case."
A 30-Day Clock: Implications for Digital Policing
The , order mandates a "" on the representation, communicated to petitioners. Practical effects? It compels transparency—no silent rejections—and could pave the way for refunds or policy reversal if merits favor free access. For , the SAANJH portal (meant for citizen services) faces reform pressure, potentially influencing other states' digital platforms.
Future cases may cite this for expedited PIL resolutions, reinforcing that administrative delays in public interest claims won't stand. Until the competent authority rules, the portal fees remain—but under judicial watch.
