YOUTH BAR ASSOCIATION OF INDIA AND ITS IMPACT ON THE

INDIAN SOCIETY
“The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be
concealed from them”
- Patrick Henry

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The present petition under Article 32 of Constitution of India is being filed by the ‘Youth Bar
Association of India’ in nature of public interest litigation for issuance of writ, order or direction
for framing guidelines to protect the identity, reputation and integrity of 3 individual/s allegedly
accused of sexual offences, till completion of the investigation with regard to the truthfulness of
such allegations.1 Since the matter pertains to good governance and the infringement of Right to
live with dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is
constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court conferred under Article 32 of the
Constitution Of India and as such the present Writ Petition is maintainable. The present petition
is an outcome of continuous irresponsible acts going on in a society which in result strengthen
or empower the hands of some wrong doers (irrespective of their gender) in the society. It is also
pertinent to mention herein that perhaps this type of acts are now impossible to be restrained, in
such circumstances the judiciary plays a very important role to come forward and frame some
guidelines to protect the integrity of a person who perhaps might have been falsely alleged or
implicated in any sexual offence.2 This Hon’ble Court has earlier in the similar placed situation
came forward and framed guidelines in Vishaka and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan 3 to protect the
integrity of the victim and to safeguard the victim from facing the social stigma.

1 Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, AIR 2016 SC 4136

2 <https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-360313.pdf> accessed 21st November 2020
3 Vishakha and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241
 THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any governments,
subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do some specific act which that body is
obliged under law to do, and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a
statutory duty. In India, article 32 and 226 of the Constitution gives power to the Supreme Court
and High Court to issue Writs in case of breach of fundamental rights by any citizen of the state.

By such writs the judiciary can control administrative actions and prevent any kind of arbitrary
use of power and discretion. Mandamus lies against authorities whose duty is to perform certain
acts and they have failed to do so.

FACTS IN ISSUE

A writ petition has been filed by the applicant in the public interest according to Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, seeking to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus. The
petitioner further claims to pass an order or direction directing the respondents to upload each
and every “first information report” lodged in all the police stations within the territory of India
in the official websites of the police of all states. The petitioner also claims that further such FIR
be uploaded as early as possible, preferably within 24 hours from the time of lodging.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

1. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after registration of the FIR, if the FIR is uploaded
online, it will solve many unnecessary problems faced by the accused and their family members.
When the criminal law is set in motion and liberty of an individual is at stake, he should have the
information so that he can take necessary steps to protect his liberty.
2. Article 21 in its broad perspective seeks to protect the persons of their lives and personal
liberties except according to the procedure established by law.4 The said article in its broad
application not only takes within its fold enforcement of the rights of an accused, but also the
rights of the victim.

3. The right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is a valuable right, and hence should
not be lightly interfered with.

4. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to
convicts, undertrials, detainees and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure
established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The counsel for Union of India, submitted that the directions issued by the High Court of
Delhi can be applied with certain modifications.

2. The Central Government is supporting all the States to set up a mechanism for filing online
complaints under the protect ‘Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems’

3. The counsel appearing for the State of Uttarakhand submitted that FIR in respect of certain
offences which are registered, such as sexual offences and the offences under POCSO may be
difficult to be put on the website.

4. The counsel appearing for North Eastern states of Meghalaya, Mizoram and Sikkim submitted
that insurgency would be a sensitive matter and it would not be possible on part of the said states
to upload the FIR within 24 hours.5

4 Constitution of India 1950

5 Surabhi Chaudhary, “Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, AIR 2016 SC 4136” (2019) LTJ
<www.lawtimesjournal.in/youth-bar-association-of-india-vs-union-of-india-air-2016-sc-4136/>
 RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Right to Information Act 2005 mandates timely response to citizen requests for government
information. It is an initiative taken by Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions to provide a– RTI Portal Gateway to the citizens for
quick search of information on the details of first Appellate Authorities,PIOs etc. amongst others,
besides access to RTI related information / disclosures published on the web by various Public
Authorities under the government of India as well as the State Governments. 6 In The Registrar,
Supreme Court of India v. R S Misra,7 the Delhi High Court has rendered an in-depth analysis
of RTI applications against any decision passed by the Supreme Court. The Court has also ruled
that the RTI Act, 2005, does not prevail over the Supreme Court Rules (SCR). In Bennett
Coleman and Co. and Ors vs. Union of India,8 SC ruled that the right to freedom of speech
and expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (a) included the right to information. In Central Board
of Secondary Education and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. 9 ,when trying to ensure
that the right to information does not conflict with several other public interests (which includes
efficient operations of the Governments, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information,
optimum use of limited fiscal resources, etc.), it is difficult to visualise and enumerate all types
of information which require to be exempted from disclosure in public interest. It was also
observed in the aforesaid judgment that “indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions
under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and
accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be
counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the
executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing
information.” In Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. UPSC,10 It enumerated the problems in
showing evaluated answer books to candidates which inter alia included disclosing answer
books would reveal intermediate stages too, including the so-called ‘raw marks’ which would
have negative implications for the integrity of the examination system.

6 <www.rti.gov.in> accessed 21st November 2020

7 The Registrar, Supreme Court of India v. R S Misra, (2012) 8 SCC 588
8 Bennett Coleman and Co. and Ors. v. Union of India, 1973 AIR 106, 1973 SCR (2) 757
9 Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 497
10 Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. UPSC, (2013) 12 SCC 489
 U.S. AND INDIA

There had been an instance which happened in 1996, when bombs exploded in a park in Atlanta,
Georgia during the 1996 summer Olympics, a man named Richard Jewell was identified by the
FBI as a suspected terrorist. Subsequently harassed, reviled and ostracised, he lost his job and
withdrew to his mother’s apartment, rarely emerging, after three months the FBI realized that
Richard was not the offender, infact, he was a hero who had shepherded people in the park to
safety. He was formally exonerated and sent a letter of apology but subsequently said ‘the
government’s letter cannot give me back my good name or my reputation….. the FBI and the
media almost destroyed me and my mother’.11 In one of the famous plays of William
Shakespeare, it has been immortalized in beautiful words “Good name in a man and a woman,
dear My Lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls……… ”.12 The main difference that lies
between both the countries is that in the US, “any person has the right to request access to
federal agency records or information except to the extent the records are protected from
disclosure by any of nine exemptions contained in the law or by one of three special law
enforcement record exclusions”13 but in India, “Right to Information empowers every citizen to
seek any information from the Government, inspect any Government documents and seek
certified photocopies thereof. Right to Information also empowers citizens to officially inspect
any Government work or to take the sample of material used in any work.” 14 The difference lies
in the amount of liberty being offered in both the countries.

ON REPUTATION AND INTEGRITY

A very famous Latin writer Publilius Syrus quotes that “A good reputation is more valuable than
money”. Reputation while being dealt by even the famous writers has been given the priority
over any materialistic pleasures and it cannot be differentiated or be considered on the parameter
of anyone’s gender. In the present times, where people are more active in the virtual world, the

11 <https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-360313.pdf> accessed 21st November 2020

12 William Shakespeare, Othello (first published 1609, First Folio 1623)
13 <www.foia.state.gov> accessed 21st November 2020
14 <www.rti.gov.in> accessed 21st November 2020
reputation and integrity of a person is always an easy target to destroy. It is true that the
Constitution15 has guaranteed its citizens the right to free speech but it doesn’t mean that it shall
be misinterpreted and consequently anyone can be defamed.

In the case of S.Nambi Narayanan, who is an Indian scientist and aerospace engineer and also
awarded India’s third highest civilian award the Padma Bhushan, was falsely charged with
espionage and got arrested at that point of time when he was the senior official at the ISRO,
Incharge of Cryogenics Division. A man of such high repute in a society has to fight for
safeguarding his reputation and integrity for quite a long time. In his case this Hon’ble court has
decided to order a compensation to him to restore his reputation. It is pertinent to mention herein
that no amount of compensation can do justice to him for what he and his family has to go
through for a long time.16

ON GENDER EQUALITY

The society has developed so far that if the gender equality is compared from early times it
seems to be in a quite better position but if the laws are considered in reference to human rights
regarding the protection of one’s integrity then it protects only Victim not the accused, who
might have been falsely or maliciously implicated. It is pertinent to mention herein that
‘ACCUSED’ means one who is alleged to have been committed an offence which is yet to be
proved beyond any reasonable doubt. It is well settled that a person is “presumed to be innocent
until he is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.” Sec-228A 17 provides punishment for
disclosing the identity of the victims but does not provide any safeguard for protection of the
identity and integrity of the accused in case of false accusation. It is important to mention herein
that a false accusation sometimes destroy the entire life of an innocent person and there has been
instances where the person who has been falsely implicated have even committed suicide. It does
not only destroy an individual’s life but creates a social stigma to the family members too.

15 Constitution of India 1950

16 <https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-360313.pdf> accessed 21st November 2020
17 Indian Penal Code 1860
Gender equality has always been in question when it has come to the application of laws and the
deliverance of justice. When it comes to any matter relating to a woman then the amount of time
taken has always been more than what it takes for a man comparatively. For example, the verdict
of the Nirbhaya case came after 7 years of trial and suffering although it was a case with straight
facts and evidence still it took such a long time to deliver justice. Thus, this is how the current
state of affairs are being run in the country which is depressing and difficult to digest. It is the
need of the hour to start realising such shortcomings and working upon them so that there can be
equality in the justice delivery system.
 JUDGMENT AT A GLANCE

Supreme Court Directions and Guidelines Issued-

1. An accused is entitled to get a copy of the FIR at an earlier stage than as prescribed under
section 207 of the CrPC 1973.

2. The copies of the FIR, unless the offence is sensitive in nature like sexual offences pertaining
to insurgence terrorism and of that category, offences under POCSO Act 2012 and such other
offences should be upload on the police website.

3. The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website shall not be taken by an officer
below the rank of DySP or any person holding equivalent post.

4. The direction for uploading of FIR in the website of all the states shall be given effect from
15th November 2016

Now, if some state police forces are not complying with these directions, then it is contempt of
the court. It may first be desirable to request the concerned police authorities to comply with the
above said.
 CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Supreme Court directive regarding uploading the First Information Report on the website of
state police was a step to wholesome reform in the criminal proceedings’ apparatus. It aimed at
promoting prompt action, transparency and curb arbitrariness. It primarily safeguarded the
interests of accused persons. The accused who may come to know that he figured in a FIR, but
has no idea of the allegations which form its basis. The apex court’s judgement also benefited the
victims of crime who have no means of getting to know whether their complaint had been
brought on record or not. The Indian police department is known for a dubious record of
suppressing crime. Viewed in this perspective the court’s prescription makes it difficult for
station house officers to ignore crime, a common practice adopted with a view to helping an
offender or to dress police statistics up so that they conceal a slightest rise in crime.18

SUGGESTIONS

The possible suggestions which can be put into practice are more transparency in information
which is made available for public use and the efficient implementation as well. And making
such information available to only those who require it and not for those who would attempt to
meddle with it and make the circumstances even worse. The initiative should be taken by our
youth themselves to bring about the necessary changes/amendments for the betterment of the
society. People have to become more vigilant and should not be putting their trust in the wrong
hands. Thus, there is an urgent need for a law/legislation which can take care of all the above
mentioned pointers as well as satisfies the demands of the people.

18 Surabhi Chaudhary, “Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, AIR 2016 SC 4136” (2019) LTJ
<www.lawtimesjournal.in/youth-bar-association-of-india-vs-union-of-india-air-2016-sc-4136/>