New Delhi, Feb 26 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Union government and all states and Union Territories to instal display boards at police stations and public offices, highlighting the penal consequences of filing false complaints, fabricated charges and false evidence.  

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi passed the order after hearing submissions made by petitioner advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.

During the hearing, the CJI-led Bench observed that the constitutional principle of fraternity must guide societal conduct, warning that the misuse of criminal law through false cases has serious consequences for innocent citizens.

“The problem arises when false complaints are lodged. The poor complainant does not even know that a false case has been registered in his name and is being exploited,” the apex court added.

The plea seeks installation of display boards at police stations, tehsil offices, district courts, panchayat bhawans, municipal offices and educational institutions, informing citizens about the legal consequences of filing false complaints, false charges, false statements and fabricated evidence.

It contends that such preventive measures are necessary to safeguard the Right to Life, liberty and dignity of innocent citizens guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and to deter misuse of criminal law provisions for settling personal or political scores.

The PIL has also sought a direction to state authorities to inform complainants about the legal consequences of filing false complaints before registering an FIR or accepting any complaint.

“The authorities must inform the complainant about punishment for false complaints, false charges, false statements, false information and false evidence before accepting the complaint, in order to secure freedom of speech and expression of innocent citizens,” the petition stated.

In addition, the petitioner has sought directions to obtain an undertaking or affidavit from complainants affirming that the averments made in the complaint, information, statement, evidence and charges are true and correct, with the objective of curbing frivolous litigation and malicious prosecution.

Relying on empirical data compiled from National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) reports, the plea claimed that there is 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 petition submitted.

Referring to the Law Commission’s 277th Report, the petition contended that false charges, wrongful prosecutions and fabricated evidence remain primary causes of miscarriage of justice and violation of Article 21.

The plea further submitted that despite the enactment of Chapter XIV of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the absence of administrative or preventive mechanisms has rendered the provisions largely ineffective.

The PIL claimed that unchecked misuse of criminal law creates a chilling effect on freedoms guaranteed under Article 19, including free speech, movement and the right to carry on trade and profession, as fear of malicious prosecution suppresses legitimate dissent and enterprise.

“False complaints and malicious prosecutions convert the criminal process itself into punishment, resulting in loss of liberty, social stigma, mental trauma and irreversible damage to reputation, even in cases ending in acquittal,” the plea stated, adding that speedy trial and presumption of innocence become meaningless when false cases proliferate unchecked.

Stating that the judiciary is overburdened due to false complaints, false charges and fabricated evidence, the petitioner submitted that neither the Centre nor the states have taken effective steps to control the menace, necessitating judicial intervention by the Supreme Court.

--IANS