Does the law mandate that the police provide a copy of the FIR to an accused person? What rulings have courts made on the right of an accused person to obtain a FIR at an earliest stage? Why is it important for an accused person to have timely access to a FIR? The Supreme Court mandated that FIRs be posted on police websites within 24 hours of registration, or on the State government's official website in the absence of such a website. On 25th August, 2026 the Supreme Court ordered the Ghaziabad Police to provide journalist Abhishek Upadhyay with a copy of the FIR. Upadhyay, who had reported on alleged irregularities in Ram Mandir donations, claimed he was being falsely implicated and denied access to the FIR despite repeated requests. Earlier, police informed him about the case but initially gave incomplete and unrelated FIR documents. Upadhyay approached the Supreme Court, alleging harassment through fabricated charges, seeking the FIR copy, quashing of the case, or transferring the investigation to an independent agency. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant protected Upadhyay from arrest, and allowed him to seek further relief from the High Court.
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), police are not legally mandated to provide a copy of the First Information Report (FIR) to the accused right after it is registered. While Section 173(2) mandates that the complainant or victim receive a free copy immediately, it excludes the accused from this requirement. Instead, the statute delays the accused's access to the document until the investigation concludes and the police submit their final report to the court. At that point, Section 230 of BNSS directs the magistrate to supply the accused with the FIR, the chargesheet, and related prosecution materials within 14 days of their court appearance. The BNSS itself remains silent on whether an accused is entitled to see the FIR earlier in the process such as while the investigation is actively underway. However, the judiciary has historically stepped in to establish that an accused person does have the right to secure an FIR shortly after it is filed.
Youth Bar Assn. of India v. Union of India 2016; In this case writ petition, preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Youth Bar Association of India, has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Union of India and the States to upload each and every first information report registered in all the police stations within the territory of India on the official website of the police of all States, as early as possible, preferably within 24 hours from the time of registration. In this case the apex court at paragraph 12 held that an accused person has the right to obtain a copy of the First Information Report (FIR) earlier than the timeframe specified under Section 207 CrPC/230 of BNSS. If an accused suspects their involvement in a criminal case and their name appears in an FIR, they or their authorized representative can apply to the police officer or Superintendent of Police for a certified copy by paying the applicable fee. Upon application, the copy must be provided within 24 hours. Once the FIR is sent to the Magistrate or Special Judge, the accused can apply to the court for a certified copy, which must be provided within two working days. These directions do not affect the statutory mandates under Section 207 CrPC/230 of BNSS. Copies of FIRs, except in sensitive cases (e.g., sexual offences, insurgency, terrorism, POCSO Act offences), should be uploaded on the police or State Government website within 24 hours of registration for easy public access. If geographical or connectivity issues arise, the upload time can be extended to 48 hours, and up to 72 hours in exceptional cases related only to connectivity problems. The decision not to upload an FIR cannot be made by police officers below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent; the District Magistrate may also have this authority and must notify the jurisdictional Magistrate of such decisions. The term "sensitive" includes privacy concerns and the nature of the FIR; the examples given are illustrative, not exhaustive. Failure to upload an FIR does not automatically grant benefits under Section 438 CrPC/482 of BNSS. If an FIR copy is withheld due to sensitivity, the aggrieved person (after revealing identity) can submit representation to the Superintendent of Police or equivalent, who must form a three-officer committee to handle the grievance. In metropolitan cities with a Police Commissioner, the Commissioner will form the three-officer committee. The committee must address the grievance within three days and inform the aggrieved person. The competent authority must form such committees within eight weeks from the date of these directions. If the accused or representative is denied an FIR copy on sensitivity grounds, they may apply to the court for a certified copy, which must be provided promptly, within three days of application submission.
In the case of Court on its Own Motion v. State, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4309; The Delhi High Court has issued directions regarding the entitlement and access to copies of the First Information Report (FIR), which closely align with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Youth Bar Assn. of India v. Union of India 2016.
In the case of Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, (2023); the Supreme Court held that it is an undisputed position of law that the FIR is a public document defined under Section 74 of the Evidence Act. In Channappa Andanappa v. State of Karnataka, 1980 SCC OnLine Kar 107: 1980 Cri LJ 1022, the Karnataka High Court held that (SCC OnLine Kar para 4) The First Information Report (FIR) is considered a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act /section 74(1) the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 as it records acts of public officers done in official duty. According to Section 76 of the Evidence Act/section 75 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, any public officer who holds custody of such a public document must provide a copy to any person entitled to inspect it, upon request and payment of the prescribed legal fees.
The Single Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Jayantibhai Lalubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 1992 SCC OnLine Guj 26: 1992 Cri LJ 2377, concluded (SCC OnLine Guj para 10) When an FIR is registered against an accused, a copy is sent to the court as per the Code/BNSS, making it a public document. This is supported by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 74 of the Evidence Act/section 74(1) of BSA, which recognize the FIR as a public document. In Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. Shyam Lal v. State of U.P., 1998 SCC OnLine All 903: 1998 Cri LJ 2879, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court followed the same view. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, while dealing with a public interest litigation being Court on its Own Motion v. State, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4309: 2011 Cri LJ 1347, has been approved by the Supreme Court in Harendra Rai thereby Court endorses the above view and holds that FIR is a public document defined under Section 74 of the Evidence Act/Section 74(1) of the BSA.
The legal position is clear that an accused cannot be denied timely access to the FIR merely because the statutory obligation under the BNSS to furnish copies arises at a later stage. The decision in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India firmly recognises an accused's right to obtain a copy of the FIR at the earliest stage, ordinarily within 24 hours of an application, subject only to limited exceptions involving sensitive offences. This right is integral to fairness, transparency and the accused's ability to seek appropriate legal remedies, including relief of quashing of an FIR. The subsequent recognition of the FIR as a public document further strengthens this position. Thus, timely access to the FIR is not merely a procedural convenience but an important safeguard against arbitrary investigation, false implication and abuse of criminal process.
Author is a Lawyer working as Research Assistant at High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. Views are personal.