SC asks Centre, states to respond on PIL over fake complaints

A bench of the top court issued notices to the Centre and states and sought their response by April 20 on the plea filed in this regard

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a PIL seeking direction to the Centre and state authorities to install display boards at all public institutions, such as police stations, court premises and municipal offices, on the legal consequences of lodging false complaints.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi issued notices to the Centre and states and sought their response by April 20 on the plea filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay.

Upadhyay, appearing in person, told the bench that there was a rise in lodging of false cases of rape, molestation or under the SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as there is no lawful measure against such actions.

 

He submitted that there is a rise in false cases as people are not aware of legal consequences, and hence, display boards should be put at the public institutions like police stations, where the complainant should be made aware of the consequences for such actions.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said, "We will be accused of gagging, but why should we be afraid of gagging. Because people abuse and then disappear. We need to create an informed society by sensitising people, and they should also know the fundamental rights of their neighbourhood. The principle of fraternity needs to be cultivated."  He observed that usually an affluent person misleads gullible villagers to lodge false cases under stringent laws, even for petty disputes.

Upadhyay contended that normally, a petty dispute or scuffle in rural areas often results in a false case being lodged under the SC/ST Atrocities Act or under the stringent POCSO Act or rape laws. "Judiciary is not burdened by genuine cases but by fake cases," he submitted and urged the court to issue directions in this matter.

The advocate said display boards should also be put in educational institutions, mentioning provisions and punishment for false complaints, false charges, false statements, false information and false evidence, in order to secure the right to life, liberty, and dignity of innocent citizens.

His plea also sought direction to state authorities to inform the complainant about punishment for false complaints, false charges, false statements, false information and false evidence before accepting the complaint, in order to secure freedom of speech and expression of innocent citizens.

Upadhyay also sought direction to state authorities to take an undertaking or an affidavit that the averments made in the complaint, information, statement, evidence and charges are true and correct, in order to control false complaints and frivolous cases.

"Empirical data compiled from NCRB reports demonstrates a stark disparity between cases registered and convictions under several special criminal laws, with acquittals running into disproportionately high numbers. This statistical pattern reveals a structural problem of false complaints, false charges and fabricated evidence clogging the criminal justice system," the plea stated.

It referred to the Law Commission in Report number 277, to say that it "expressly identified false charges, fabricated evidence and wrongful prosecutions as primary causes of miscarriage of justice and violations of Article 21."  "The commission notes that existing remedies are episodic, uncertain and ineffective, and that a large percentage of undertrials ultimately face acquittal after years of incarceration," Upadhyay said in the plea.

He added that despite the enactment of provisions in the BNS of 2023, the absence of any administrative or preventive mechanism has rendered these provisions largely inoperative.

"Where penal provisions exist on paper but are not operationalised through any preventive framework, the state acts arbitrarily by omission. The failure to uniformly inform complainants of legal consequences, or to create minimal safeguards against abuse, results in unequal application of criminal law and permits its selective weaponisation.

"Such deliberate inaction defeats the constitutional promise of equal protection and fair administration of justice," it said.

Upadhyay said false cases impose a chilling effect on freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 and fear of malicious prosecution suppresses free speech and expression, restricts movement, undermines the right to carry on trade, business and profession, and discourages legitimate dissent and enterprise.

"When citizens, professionals, and entrepreneurs operate under constant apprehension of false FIRs, constitutional freedoms become illusory. A legal system that allows unchecked misuse of criminal process indirectly curtails these freedoms without any reasonable restriction sanctioned by law," it said.