High Court Directs Punjab Govt To Decide Plea Against Charges For Downloading FIRs From SAANJH Portal
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation challenging the levy of charges for downloading FIRs and related documents from the Punjab Police's SAANJH portal, directing the authorities to consider the petitioner's representation.A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry while noting that representation is pending in...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation challenging the levy of charges for downloading FIRs and related documents from the Punjab Police's SAANJH portal, directing the authorities to consider the petitioner's representation.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry while noting that representation is pending in Punjab Home Affairs Department said, "this Court directs the Competent Authority to consider and decide the representation dated 24.03.2026...by passing a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and to communicate the same to the petitioner."
The petitioners sought quashing of an alleged policy imposing ₹80 as service charge for downloading FIRs, ₹100 for DDRs, and ₹30 for lost report receipts, from the Punjab Police SAANJH portal.
They further sought restoration of free digital access to such documents, contending that the charges violate statutory provisions including Section 173(2) BNSS, Rule 24.5 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, and directions of the Supreme Court in the Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India case.
The petition also sought refund of ₹80 allegedly charged from one of the petitioners for downloading an FIR, along with interest, and a direction to decide their pending representation.
Taking note of the submission that the representation dated March 24, 2026 was pending consideration before the authorities, the Court refrained from examining the merits of the challenge.
With directions to decide the representation, the Court disposed of the PIL, granting liberty to the petitioners, while expressly stating that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, petitioner in person.
Mr. Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Title: ABHISHEK MALHOTRA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER