FIR Registration, and Citizens’ Legal Remedies: A Crisis of Access to Justice
By Md Irshad Ahmad Advocate Supreme Court of India
In India’s criminal justice system, the First Information Report (FIR) is the foundational document that sets the law in motion. For an ordinary citizen, access to justice begins not in the courtroom but at the police station. Yet, police inaction and refusal to register FIRs remain among the most persistent and damaging problems confronting victims of crime. This failure not only violates statutory mandates but also erodes constitutional guarantees of equality and personal liberty.
The legal position regarding FIR registration is unambiguous. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 now substantially reflected in Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 casts a mandatory duty upon the police to register an FIR where information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The provision leaves no scope for discretion at the threshold stage. The police officer is not empowered to test the veracity of allegations or weigh the sufficiency of evidence prior to registration.
This position was conclusively settled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014), where the Court held that registration of an FIR is compulsory in all cognizable offences and that any failure or delay amounts to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.The Court permitted preliminary inquiry only in exceptional categories and even then within strictly defined timelines.The judgment was intended to remove ambiguity and curb arbitrary police practices.
Despite this authoritative pronouncement, ground realities reveal a stark disconnect between law and enforcement. NCRB statistics and independent studies indicate that a significant number of complainants are either turned away or discouraged from lodging FIRs, particularly in cases involving influential accused persons, political sensitivity, or socially vulnerable victims.Crimes against women, land disputes, financial frauds, and offences affecting marginalized communities are especially prone to such institutional reluctance.
Police inaction is often justified under informal pretexts such as lack of jurisdiction, absence of prima facie evidence, or the suggestion of “amicable settlement.” These explanations have no sanction in law.The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that the police cannot assume the role of adjudicator at the pre-investigation stage. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) and subsequent decisions, the Court clarified that assessment of truthfulness is the function of investigation, not registration.
Judicial remedies for police inaction are well recognised. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed that an aggrieved person may approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, who is empowered to direct registration of an FIR and ensure a fair investigation. This remedy was further refined in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015), where the Court balanced the need to prevent abuse of process with the imperative of protecting genuine victims, mandating affidavits to ensure accountability.
High Courts have consistently echoed these principles, holding errant police officers accountable and, in some cases, recommending departmental action for deliberate non-registration. Yet, the repeated judicial intervention itself underscores a systemic governance failure. Courts are compelled to perform supervisory roles because the primary institution entrusted with enforcement fails to discharge its statutory obligations.
The constitutional implications of police inaction are profound. Arbitrary refusal to register FIRs violates Article 14 by introducing inequality before law and Article 21 by denying timely access to justice. It also has severe practical consequences. Delay at the FIR stage often leads to loss of evidence, intimidation of witnesses, and emboldening of offenders, thereby weakening the prosecution even before it begins.
The enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeks to modernise criminal procedure and introduce greater efficiency. However, legislative reform cannot succeed without a corresponding shift in institutional culture. Unless police accountability is enforced through strict disciplinary mechanisms and regular judicial oversight, statutory mandates will remain ineffective on the ground.
Equally important is public legal awareness. Citizens must understand that FIR registration is not a privilege but a legal right, and that remedies exist beyond the police station. Written complaints to senior officers, recourse to Magistrates, and constitutional remedies under Article 226 are integral components of the justice framework. Fear, resignation, or misplaced deference to authority only perpetuate illegality.
A criminal justice system that falters at its entry point cannot inspire public confidence. FIR registration is the gateway through which the rule of law enters the lives of citizens. When that gate is arbitrarily closed, constitutional promises are reduced to abstractions. Ensuring strict compliance with FIR registration norms is therefore not merely an administrative necessity but a constitutional imperative. Legal awareness, institutional accountability, and sustained judicial vigilance remain the only viable means to bridge the gap between the law as declared and the law as experienced by the citizen.
Compiled and Authored by:
Md Irshad Ahmad
Advocate, Supreme Court of India