The Supreme Courtroom on Thursday issued discover to the Union Authorities, States and Union Territories on a Public Curiosity Litigation looking for instructions to curb false complaints, fabricated proof and malicious prosecution.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pacholi was listening to a petition filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay.
The petition filed beneath Article 32 seeks instructions to introduce administrative safeguards to forestall false complaints and defend the suitable to life, liberty and dignity of harmless residents.
Through the listening to, the Chief Justice noticed that sensitising society concerning the rights of others was mandatory to deal with the issue of false complaints.
“We will probably be accused of gagging… however why ought to we be afraid of gagging? As a result of individuals abuse after which disappear away. We have to create a really knowledgeable society with sensitising individuals and they need to know basic proper of their neighborhood additionally. Precept of fraternity must be cultivated,” the CJI noticed.
The Courtroom additionally famous that false complaints have been generally filed with out the information of the complainant.
“The issue is when false complaints are lodged… the de facto complainant doesn’t even know that it’s filed. It’s completed by faux indicators and so on and the poor fellow doesn’t even know that he’s being exploited by the wealthy and effectively off,” the CJI stated.
Showing in particular person, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay argued that faux circumstances have been a significant burden on the justice system.
“This court docket just isn’t burdened due to real however faux circumstances. The trial courts additionally. Jhagda hota hai zameen ka however case lagta hai SC/ST ka. Imandar log darr darr ke reh rahe hai. The material of rural India is disturbed. Civil ka case legal ban jata hai,” he submitted.
He stated that placing show boards in police stations and Courts concerning the punishment for submitting false circumstances generally is a good deterrent. He cited the instance of Nambi Narayanan, and stated that by the point an individual is exonerated, years will cross by.
Reliefs Sought
The petitioner seeks instructions to the Union and State governments to put in show boards at police stations, court docket premises, panchayat workplaces, municipal workplaces and academic establishments specifying the provisions and punishments referring to false complaints and false proof beneath the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
It additionally seeks instructions that complainants learn concerning the penal penalties of submitting false complaints earlier than an FIR is registered.
One other key prayer is for a compulsory enterprise or affidavit from complainants affirming that the allegations made in complaints, statements or proof are true and proper in order to discourage frivolous and malicious circumstances.
The petition additionally seeks a declaration that sentences imposed for false complaints, false fees and false proof ought to run consecutively.
The petitioner contends that false complaints, false fees, false statements and fabricated proof pose a severe menace to the rule of regulation and basic rights. Referring to Chapter XIV of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner submits that although penal provisions exist to punish false circumstances, authorities have did not create any administrative mechanism to forestall misuse of legal regulation.
Counting on NCRB information, the petitioner argues that conviction charges beneath sure particular legal legal guidelines are comparatively low and claims that false complaints are a significant purpose for acquittals. The petition refers to legal guidelines akin to Part 498A IPC, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Safety of Youngsters from Sexual Offences Act.
The plea argues that failure to forestall false circumstances violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Structure and undermines liberty, dignity and the suitable to speedy justice.
The petition additionally depends on the Regulation Fee’s 277th Report on wrongful prosecution and the Supreme Courtroom’s judgment in S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews recognising repute as a part of the suitable to life.
In keeping with the petitioner, administrative safeguards akin to warnings and affidavits on the stage of submitting complaints would assist scale back malicious prosecutions and defend harmless individuals.
Case : ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS | W.P.(C) NO. 209/2026
