Back
High Court Halts PIL Over FIR Fees, Probes Deeper into 's Charge History
In a sharp procedural move, a division bench of the comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry on , questioned the timeline of pre-existing facilitation charges levied by the Punjab government. This came during the hearing of a filed by advocates and , challenging a recent notification imposing fees for downloading FIR copies from the 's Saanjh Portal/App .
The bench adjourned the matter to , directing the petitioners to place the challenged notification on record and address the history of similar charges.
PIL Fires First Shot at 'Illegal' Digital Tolls on FIRs
The PIL, titled and another v. State of Punjab and another (CWP-PIL-76-2026), targets a notification from the Punjab government. It introduces: - Rs 80 service charge for downloading an FIR copy, - Rs 100 for a Daily Diary Report (DDR), - Rs 20 for Lost Information Report copies.
Strikingly, physical copies from police stations remain free. Petitioner himself paid Rs 80 on to download an FIR, seeking refund with 12% interest.
The plea argues these fees violate , mandating free FIR copies " " to informants. It also cites , deeming FIRs public documents, and Rules, 1934 (Chapter XXIV, Rule 24.5) , which requires free carbon copies without fee provisions for digital versions.
Drawing from the Supreme Court's directive in , the PIL insists FIRs must be uploaded online instantly and provided free, framing access as integral to —ensuring fair investigation, trial, and justice.
Bench Turns Tables: Existing Charges Under Scrutiny
The court zeroed in on prior practices, posing a "pointed question" to petitioners' counsel:
"A pointed question was put to learned counsel for the petitioners as to since when the existing facilitation charges of Rs. 20/- for getting information regarding missing article/mobile and Rs. 50/- for obtaining copies of untraced reports in cases of stolen vehicle, road accident cases and theft cases, are being levied by the State of Punjab."
Counsel, unable to respond immediately, sought an adjournment. The bench noted the notification's absence from records and mandated its filing.
This pivot highlights potential continuity in fee structures, challenging the PIL's narrative of novel "illegal" impositions.
Constitutional Stakes: Free Access or Facilitation Fee?
Petitioners decry the fees as inventing "extra 'facilitation' or 'convenience'" for statutorily free public documents, breaching Supreme Court mandates and police rules using traditional carbon-copy processes.
No substantive respondent arguments surfaced yet, with appearing for the State. The PIL seeks quashing of the notification, restoration of free digital FIR access, refunds, and compliance enforcement.
Key Observations from the Bench
-
On historical charges :
"A pointed question was put to learned counsel for the petitioners as to since when the existing facilitation charges of Rs. 20/- for getting information regarding missing article/mobile and Rs. 50/- for obtaining copies of untraced reports... are being levied by the State of Punjab."
-
Petitioners' response :
"Learned counsel for the petitioners could not respond to the said question and prayed for an adjournment."
-
Procedural directive :
"The notification under challenge has also not been placed on record. Let the same be brought on record. List on
."
Adjournment Sets Stage for Deeper Dive
The order signals no hasty ruling, emphasizing factual groundwork. If existing charges predate the notification, it could weaken claims of illegality. Conversely, proving violations of BNSS and Supreme Court guidelines might bolster demands for free digital access.
This PIL underscores tensions between digitization conveniences and citizens' rights to unhindered justice tools, potentially influencing other states' police portals.
