The Supreme Court recently dismissed a PIL filed by Sourav Das (Journalist) seeking the free public disclosure of all chargesheets in criminal trials on the internet and held that chargesheets are not public document for the purposes of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 & Right to Information Act, 2005.

In a previous case – Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India – the Supreme Court itself directed the police across the states to publish copies of First Information Reports (FIRs) on their websites within 24 hours of being registered.

Therefore, it is important to go through to judgement to understand – whether the difference between the FIR and chargesheet is well reasoned or not.

FIR is a public document

In Court on its Own Motion through Mr. Ajay Chaudhary vs. State (2010), the Delhi High Court sedulously examined the nature of an FIR, in view of various precedents, and concluded that an FIR, being a record of the acts of the public officers prepared in discharge of the official duty, is a public document under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

This reasoning was then adopted in the judgement of Youth Bar Association of India v. UOI and the police were directed to upload the copies of FIRs on their websites.

But the chargesheet is not – the flawed reasoning behind it

In his PIL, Sourav Das, apart from relying on the precedent in the Youth Bar association case, based his contentions on the substantial jurisprudence on the right to information, which is established as a facet of the right to free speech & expression under Article 19(1)(a).

The petitioner then emphasized on the obligation upon the authorities to disclose public records, citing Section 4 of the Right to Information Act that requires the proactive disclosure of public records on government websites.

Dismissing his contentions, the Supreme Court carved out a contradictory path with its view hitherto. In para 4.1, the Supreme Court observed –

“From the entire judgment it appears that this Court directed the copies of the FIRs to be published within 24 hours on the police websites or on the websites of the State Government. Looking to the interest of the accused and so that the innocent accused are not harassed and they are able to get the relief from the competent court and they are not taken by surprise. Therefore, the directions issued by this Court are in favour of the accused, which cannot be stretch to the public at large so far as the chargesheets are concerned.”

This observation did not ponder upon the ‘why’ behind it. The Court outrightly held that the publication of FIR is in favour of the accused but it didn’t examine why the chargesheet isn’t. The right to information or the jurisprudence regarding Article 19(1)(a) was never trundled into view. Both the phrases didn’t find any single mention throughout the judgement. Logically, if the publication of FIRs would strengthen the rights of the accused, I don’t understand how the publication of chargesheets won’t.

In para 4.5, it was observed –

“Therefore, if the relief as prayed in the present petition is allowed and all the chargesheets and relevant documents produced along with the chargesheets are put on the public domain or on the websites of the State Governments it will be contrary to the Scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code and it may as such
violate the rights of the accused as well as the victim and/or even the investigating agency. Putting the FIR on the website cannot be equated with putting the chargesheets along with the relevant documents on the public domain and on the websites of the State Governments.”

Again, the logic behind this observation is unclear. In Youth Association Case, the Supreme Court examined the provisions and scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code but still came to the conclusion that the FIRs shall be uploaded. Parting ways with that observation, the Court didn’t elaborate why doing the same, with respect to a chargesheet, will go against the scheme of the Criminal Code. The Court, also, did not elaborate on the violation of rights, of the accused as well as the victim, that can be a consequence of putting the chargesheets on the public domain.

Then the Court went on to held that a chargesheet is not a public document under Section 4 of the Evidence Act in the incomprehensible (the only way to describe it) para 5. The Court observed –

“Documents mentioned in Section 74 of the Evidence Act only can be said to be public documents, the certified copies of which are to be given by the concerned police officer having the custody of such a public document. Copy of the chargesheet along with the necessary documents cannot be said to be public documents within the definition of Public Documents as per Section 74 of the Evidence Act.”

By a bare reading of Section 74 and keeping in mind the established nature of FIR, being a public document, it can be clearly said that chargesheets, prepared by police officers in discharge of official duties, are public documents. It is beyond my understanding – how can there be a difference between an FIR and a chargesheet, as far as them being a public document is concerned.

With that said, these contradictory observations by the Supreme Court hinders the transparency in the criminal justice system. Besides that, the contradiction also throw light on the problem of pendency of cases – which is only furthered by such discrepancy. The Court should also deliver well reasoned judgments to further the jurisprudence on a particular subject otherwise the same problems keep arising in different contexts. The question – whether chargesheet is a public document or not – will surely come before the Supreme Court again and, hopefully, the Court will then deliver a well reasoned judgment on it touching upon the right to information and balancing it with the right to privacy of the accused and victims.