SC's 2016 Verdict Exempts 'Sensitive' FIRs From Mandatory Online Uploading; 'Aggrieved Person' May Seek Copy From SP/CP: Allahabad HC

HC referred to the exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court in its 2016 verdict in Youth Bar Association of India vs. Union of India and Another, which bars police from uploading FIRs related to sexual offences, insurgency and terrorism on the website of the State governments.

The observation came from a Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani while disposing of a writ petition alleging police harassment and the refusal of authorities to provide an FIR copy pertaining to a shooting incident.

Briefly put, the petitioner (Abhihita Misra) alleged that on November 2, 2025, UP Police officials barged inside her house and locked three of her cars without any prior notice or explanation.

Her counsel claimed that despite the police action, she was not informed of the offence committed and no information as to why her three cars have been locked by the police personnel has been given

During the hearing, the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) informed the Court that the police action stemmed from an incident on the night of October 31, 2025, when unknown persons riding in a white car had fired in the premises of a residential school.

Upon a complaint being given by the Manager of the said school, the CCTV footage was looked into and the cars in question were traced to the petitioner's residence and hence, the same were locked by the police.

The State counsel submitted that while the complainant (the school manager) was initially fearful, an FIR was eventually lodged regarding the incident on November 3 under Section 109(1) BNS.

It was further clarified that only one car was found to be involved in the crime and the same has been seized, while the locks of the other two vehicles have been opened.

The petitioner, on the other hand, contended that in any case the police were mandatorily required to upload the FIR on their official website. She also sought a copy of the same.

Rejecting the plea for a direction to provide her a copy of the FIR, the High Court observed that the Apex Court in its 2016 verdict had clearly distinguished between "general FIRs" and those sensitive in nature.

The Bench noted that FIRs pertaining to the offences such as sexual offences, insurgency, terrorism and those under the POCSO Act are not to be uploaded on the State's website.

Referring to Paragraph11.8 of the Youth Bar Association judgment, the High Court highlighted the specific remedy available in such instances:

"…in case a copy of the F.I.R. is not provided on the ground of sensitive nature of the case, a person aggrieved by the said action, after disclosing his identity, can submit a representation to the Superintendent of the Police or any persons holding the equivalent post in the State."

The Court noted that upon receiving such a representation, the SP (or the Commissioner of Police in metropolitan cities) is required to constitute a committee of 3 officers to address the grievance and communicate its decision to the aggrieved person within three days.

Further, noting that the investigation in the case is ongoing against unknown persons, the HC said that it was open for the petitioner to apply for the FIR copy via this specific mechanism.

It added that the competent authority will then decide if the petitioner qualifies as an "aggrieved person" who could be given a copy of the FIR.

Case title - Abhihita Misra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Homes Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others

Case citation :

Click Here To Read/Download Order