On January 9, a Supreme Court division bench led by Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar reserved orders on whether to issue notice on a PIL seeking a direction that police and investigating agencies such as the CBI, ED, and others upload chargesheets filed in cases in a public platform for easy access by the general public. The bench had some reservations about the idea. The bench expressed concern that if chargesheets are made public, they will be abused.

"If FIRs are given to those unrelated to the case, busybodies, NGOs might misuse it", As soon as the writ petition filed by RTI activist and investigative journalist Sourav Das was heard, Justice Shah made a comment. Justice CT Ravikumar emphasised that the Supreme Court's decision in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case (which upheld the PMLA provisions) held that an ECIR was not the same as a FIR and thus the accused was not entitled to a copy of it. As a result, the judge expressed doubt about issuing a directive to the ED to publicly upload the chargesheets.

On behalf of the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan cited a 2016 ruling in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC 473, in which the Supreme Court directed that copies of first information reports be published on the police or state government's website within 24 hours of their registration, unless the offences are sensitive in nature. On the basis of this decision, it was argued that the logic of disclosure would apply more strongly to charge-sheets, because, unlike FIRS, charge-sheets were filed only after due investigation. Bhushan contended, “A charge-sheet filed by a police authority is definitely an act or a record of an act by a public official. Any public document should be given to a person who has the right to demand that. It is our argument that such a document would be disclosable under the Right to Information Act.” He also insisted, “It is the duty of every public authority to put out the information suo motu.”

The petitioner contended that citizens had a legal and constitutional right to 'proactive disclosure of charge-sheets,' citing Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution as evidence. According to the petitioner, the inability to access charge-sheets also interfered with the press's right to faithfully report on crimes and criminal trials held in open court, as well as citizens' right to actively participate in our country's participatory democratic framework, of which the right to know was a necessary component. It was included in the petition, “To induce transparency, it is incumbent to make available charge-sheets on [the appropriate] websites and enable public access to charge-sheets so that the citizenry can stay informed, and the press can faithfully and accurately report on criminal trials.” The petitioner has argued, “The logic of disclosure applies more strongly to charge-sheets, for while FIRS are based on unsubstantiated allegations, chargesheets are filed after due investigation.”

Other statutory provisions cited by the petitioner include the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Right to Information Act of 2005. He has submitted, “The Right to Information Act and the judgments of the High Courts and Central Information Commissions vis-à-vis charge-sheets also envisage that charge-sheets are public documents and thus, available for public disclosure under the Act subject to exemptions under Section 8. Further, Section 6(2) provides that no reason or justification is required to seek information.”

According to the petitioner, the inability to access charge-sheets also interferes with the press's right to faithfully report on crimes and criminal trials held in open court, as well as citizens' right to actively participate in our country's participatory democratic framework, of which the right to know is a necessary component. He has contended, “To induce transparency, it is incumbent to make available charge-sheets on [the appropriate] websites and enable public access to charge-sheets so that the citizenry can stay informed, and the press can faithfully and accurately report on criminal trials.”

Case Title: Saurav Das vs Union of India 
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 1126/2022