New Delhi, February 26 The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Centre and state authorities to install display boards at all public institutions, such as police stations, court premises, and municipal offices, on the legal consequences of filing false complaints.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi issued notices to the Centre and states and sought their response by April 20 on the plea filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay.
Upadhyay, appearing in person, told the bench that there has been an increase in the filing of false cases of rape, molestation, or under the SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as there is no legal measure against such actions.
He submitted that there has been an increase in false cases because people are not aware of the legal consequences, and therefore, display boards should be put at public institutions like police stations, where the complainant should be made aware of the consequences of such actions.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said, "We will be accused of stifling dissent, but why should we be afraid of stifling dissent. Because people abuse and then disappear. We need to create an informed society by educating people, and they should also know the fundamental rights of their community. The principle of fraternity needs to be cultivated."
He observed that usually, a wealthy person deceives gullible villagers to file false cases under stringent laws, even for minor disputes.
Upadhyay contended that normally, a minor dispute or scuffle in rural areas often results in a false case being filed under the SC/ST Atrocities Act or under the stringent POCSO Act or rape laws. "The judiciary is burdened with genuine cases, but not with fake cases," he submitted and urged the court to issue directions in this matter.
The advocate said that display boards should also be put in educational institutions, mentioning provisions and punishments for false complaints, false charges, false statements, false information, and false evidence, in order to secure the right to life, liberty, and dignity of innocent citizens.
His plea also sought directions to state authorities to inform the complainant about the punishments for false complaints, false charges, false statements, false information, and false evidence before accepting the complaint, in order to secure the freedom of speech and expression of innocent citizens.
Upadhyay also sought directions to state authorities to take an undertaking or an affidavit that the statements made in the complaint, information, statement, evidence, and charges are true and correct, in order to control false complaints and frivolous cases.
"Empirical data compiled from NCRB reports demonstrates a stark disparity between cases registered and convictions under several special criminal laws, with acquittals running into disproportionately high numbers. This statistical pattern reveals a structural problem of false complaints, false charges, and fabricated evidence clogging the criminal justice system," the plea stated.
It referred to the Law Commission in Report number 277, to say that it "explicitly identified false charges, fabricated evidence, and wrongful prosecutions as primary causes of miscarriage of justice and violations of Article 21."
"The commission notes that existing remedies are episodic, uncertain, and ineffective, and that a large percentage of undertrials ultimately face acquittal after years of incarceration," Upadhyay said in the plea.
He added that despite the enactment of provisions in the BNS of 2023, the absence of any administrative or preventive mechanism has rendered these provisions largely inoperative.
"Where penal provisions exist on paper but are not operationalized through any preventive framework, the state acts arbitrarily by omission. The failure to uniformly inform complainants of legal consequences, or to create minimal safeguards against abuse, results in unequal application of criminal law and permits its selective weaponisation.
"Such deliberate inaction defeats the constitutional promise of equal protection and fair administration of justice," it said.
Upadhyay said that false cases impose a chilling effect on freedoms guaranteed under Article 19, and the fear of malicious prosecution suppresses free speech and expression, restricts movement, undermines the right to carry on trade, business, and profession, and discourages legitimate dissent and enterprise.
"When citizens, professionals, and entrepreneurs operate under constant apprehension of false FIRs, constitutional freedoms become illusory. A legal system that allows unchecked misuse of criminal process indirectly curtails these freedoms without any reasonable restriction sanctioned by law," it said.