Can an accused be denied a copy of the FIR? | Explained

The Supreme Court's directive mandating the online upload of First Information Reports (FIRs) within 24 hours of registration under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, represents a watershed moment in India's criminal justice reform journey. This provision, which replaced the colonial-era Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, was designed to operationalize the fundamental right of an accused person to access the FIR promptly — a right the Supreme Court has firmly anchored in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. In landmark judgments such as *Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India* (2016) and *Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI* (2022), the Court emphasized that timely access to the FIR is not merely procedural but a substantive component of fair trial and due process. Despite this clear judicial mandate, ground-level compliance remains abysmal. Police departments across states routinely fail to upload FIRs within the stipulated 24-hour window, often citing technical infrastructure gaps, lack of training, or administrative inertia. This systemic non-compliance effectively denies the accused — especially the marginalized and economically weaker sections — the ability to seek legal remedies such as anticipatory bail, challenge false implications, or prepare a defence in time. The implications are profound: it erodes public trust in law enforcement, undermines the transparency objectives of the three new criminal laws (BNSS, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) that came into force on July 1, 2024, and perpetuates a culture of opacity in policing. The BNSS was enacted after extensive parliamentary debate and stakeholder consultation, aiming to decolonize criminal procedure, enhance victim-centric justice, and leverage technology for accountability. Section 173 BNSS explicitly requires FIR registration through electronic means and mandates digital accessibility. However, the gap between legislative intent and executive implementation reveals deeper governance challenges — including federal coordination issues, as policing is a State subject under the Seventh Schedule (List II, Entry 2), while the BNSS is a Central law. This tension often leads to uneven adoption across states. Moreover, the failure to upload FIRs disproportionately affects undertrial prisoners, who constitute over 75% of India's prison population (as per NCRB Prison Statistics 2022), many of whom are detained without timely knowledge of the charges against them. Civil society, legal aid authorities, and judicial monitoring mechanisms must play a more active role in enforcing compliance. Going forward, the integration of the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) with real-time FIR upload dashboards, coupled with strict departmental accountability for non-compliant officers, could bridge this implementation deficit. For competitive exam aspirants, this issue sits at the intersection of constitutional law (Article 21, 22), criminal procedure reforms, governance, and digital rights — making it a high-yield topic for UPSC, State PSCs, Judiciary, and law entrance exams. Understanding the interplay between judicial activism, legislative reform, and executive implementation is key to mastering this theme.