Bibek Debroy: A fresh initiative on reform (FIR)

What is the expansion of FIR? With so many high-profile acquittals and criminal justice reform on everyone's agenda, and even otherwise, most people know FIR stands for first information report. To the best of my knowledge, no such legal term is used anywhere else in the world. Indeed, notwithstanding common usage of the term FIR, there is no such legal expression and it doesn't occur in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) of 1973, the specific reference being to Section 154.

"(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant."

That's the gist of a FIR, even if it is not so named. Sub-section (3) has additional points concerning what one should do if there is refusal at a police station to lodge a FIR. The FIR initiates a criminal investigation. Irrespective of what actually happens, there is a lot of blind belief about FIRs. Unlike other bits of evidence, FIRs don't need corroboration, there being a presumption that when a FIR is lodged, the police don't know about the incident and are unlikely to manufacture evidence. In addition, when a FIR is recorded, memory about the crime is fresh and untainted. Thus, the practice of allowing telephone calls, even anonymous calls, as information for FIR purposes, or even allowing on-line submission of FIRs. Unfortunately, that's not quite what happens and the police have a lot of discretion that is invariably abused. This is over and above the problem of informants themselves not lodging FIRs. FIRs become frustratingly irritable responses by the police because of various reasons.

First, to artificially reduce crime data and blow up the success of investigations, police refuse to register FIRs and this becomes easier because citizens are often not aware of their rights. Second, and related to the first point, there is a tendency to disguise cognisable crimes as non-cognisable or minor ones. The investigation for a cognisable crime is mandatory, while that for a non-cognisable crime is not. Third, FIRs are supposed to be recorded before any investigation. However, because FIRs have a legal sanctity in court, the police tend to investigate before registering FIRs and this is actually encouraged by the entire system, because it is felt that this makes the prosecution's case stronger. Fourth, this gives the police even more discretion. Details are left out. Because of the delay, the accused can influence what is written in the FIR. They can leave out the name of the accused. They can plug in the names of others, so that those people can be harassed.

For a while, after the submission of the second Mallimath Committee's recommendations, criminal justice reform seemed to disappear from the agenda. Because of these high profile cases, it is now back. But if one looks at what is being discussed, they are all about the big things. These are indeed important. And while these are debated, why not do something simple, like removing discretion from lodging FIRs, the original intention behind Section 154 of CrPC? Kapil Sibal should have been law minister. But in our system of determining portfolios, the practice is of giving someone a portfolio where he has the least comparative advantage.

Nevertheless, the science and technology ministry has come up with a simple solution that will solve the FIR problem. There is a special stylus and an electronic sheet, the latter feeding into a centralised computer system, so that once recorded, tampering with FIRs is impossible. This doesn't remove all discretion associated with filing FIRs, but does remove discretion once the FIR is registered. By the way, of the two IT items, the stylus and the sheet, one has been developed indigenously and the other externally. Unfortunately, barring two instances that I will not name, I don't think we have had good law ministers since 1991, the law ministry being perceived as one where anyone can be dumped. So, there is a danger of this initiative also being buried.