New Delhi, Feb 26 (NationPress) The Supreme Court has recently issued a notice regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that aims to direct the Union government, along with all states and Union Territories, to set up display boards in police stations and public offices. These boards would outline the legal repercussions of submitting false complaints, fabricated charges, and false evidence.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi delivered this order following the arguments presented by the petitioner's advocate, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.

During the proceedings, the CJI-led Bench noted that the constitutional tenet of fraternity should guide societal behavior, emphasizing that the abuse of criminal law through false cases inflicts severe damage on innocent individuals.

“Issues arise when false complaints are filed. The vulnerable complainant might be oblivious to a false case registered in their name, leading to exploitation,” the Supreme Court remarked.

The petition advocates for the placement of display boards at various locations, including police stations, tehsil offices, district courts, panchayat bhawans, municipal offices, and educational institutions. These boards would inform the public about the legal ramifications of filing false complaints, false charges, false statements, and fabricated evidence.

It argues that such preventive measures are essential to uphold the Right to Life, liberty, and dignity of innocent citizens as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and to deter the misuse of criminal law for personal or political vendettas.

The PIL also insists that state authorities should notify complainants about the legal repercussions of filing false complaints before registering any FIR or accepting a complaint.

“Authorities must inform the complainant about the penalties associated with false complaints, false charges, false statements, false information, and false evidence prior to accepting the complaint to protect the freedom of speech and expression of innocent citizens,” the petition mentioned.

Moreover, the petitioner requests directives to secure an undertaking or affidavit from complainants affirming the truthfulness of their allegations, information, statements, evidence, and charges, aiming to reduce frivolous litigation and malicious prosecution.

By relying on data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) reports, the petition highlights a significant disparity between the number of cases registered and the corresponding convictions under various special criminal laws, with acquittals occurring at disproportionately high rates.

“This statistical trend indicates a systemic issue of false complaints, false charges, and fabricated evidence obstructing the criminal justice process,” the petition asserts.

In reference to the Law Commission’s 277th Report, the petition argues that false charges, wrongful prosecutions, and fabricated evidence are key contributors to miscarriages of justice and violations of Article 21.

The plea further states that despite the establishment of Chapter XIV of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the lack of administrative or preventive measures has rendered these provisions largely ineffective.

The PIL highlights that unchecked misuse of criminal law creates a chilling effect on the freedoms protected by Article 19, which includes free speech, movement, and the right to engage in trade and profession, as the fear of malicious prosecution stifles legitimate dissent and enterprise.

“False complaints and malicious prosecutions transform the criminal process into punishment itself, resulting in loss of liberty, social stigma, mental distress, and irreversible harm to one’s reputation, even in acquittal cases,” the petition states, also noting that the principles of speedy trial and presumption of innocence become meaningless amidst rampant false cases.

The petitioner pointed out that the judiciary is overwhelmed due to false complaints, false charges, and fabricated evidence, and noted that neither the Centre nor the states have taken adequate steps to mitigate this issue, warranting judicial intervention from the Supreme Court.