Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal

Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a recent development concerning digital access to justice, has directed the Punjab government to decide upon the legality of imposing service charges for downloading First Information Reports (FIRs) and Daily Diary Reports (DDRs). A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), ordered the State to pass a speaking order on the matter within a 30-day window.

The ruling comes in response to a petition challenging the Punjab Police's current practice of charging fees through its 'SAANJH' portal. The court noted that the petitioners had already submitted a formal representation to the Department of Home Affairs and Justice, which remains pending.

The PIL was initiated by Abhishek Malhotra and another, seeking to quash a policy that imposes a service charge of ₹80 for downloading FIRs, ₹100 for DDRs, and ₹30 for Lost Information Receipts from the Punjab Police SAANJH Portal. The petitioners moved the High Court after discovering that these charges were being levied without the relevant notification being made available on official websites. They argued that such fees hinder the transparency of the criminal justice system and create a financial barrier to accessing public documents.

The primary question before the court was whether the State is legally permitted to charge citizens for digital access to FIRs and DDRs. The court was also called upon to determine if such charges violate the mandate of Section 173(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the Youth Bar Association case regarding the free availability of FIRs.

Challenge To Service Charges On Statutory Grounds

The petitioners contended that the imposition of fees for downloading FIRs is in direct contravention of established legal frameworks. Specifically, they relied on Section 173(2) of the BNSS and Rule 24.5 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which govern the recording and distribution of information related to cognizable offenses.

It was argued that the Supreme Court of India, in the landmark Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, had issued clear directives to ensure that FIRs are uploaded on police websites within 24 hours of registration to facilitate easy access for the accused and the public. The petitioners alleged that the 'SAANJH' portal's fee structure effectively monetizes a mandatory public service.

"The petitioner... seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith restore free Digital Access to FIR’s and DDR’s on the official website of the Punjab Police SAANJH Portal."

Direction For Time-Bound Decision By Competent Authority

During the proceedings, the court took note of the fact that the petitioners had already approached the Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, and the Director General of Police through a representation dated March 24, 2026. This representation highlighted the illegal nature of the charges and sought a refund of the amounts collected.

The Bench observed that since the administrative authorities are already seized of the representation, it would be appropriate for the Executive to first apply its mind to the grievances raised. The court emphasized that the decision-making process must be transparent and legally reasoned.

"This Court directs the Competent Authority to consider and decide the representation... by passing a speaking order in accordance with law... and to communicate the same to the petitioner."

No Expression On Merits Of The Case

The High Court clarified that it was not delving into the merits of the fee structure or the validity of the underlying policy at this stage. By directing a speaking order, the court ensured that the State would have to provide a legal justification for the service charges, which could then be subject to further judicial scrutiny if necessary.

The petition was disposed of with the direction that the final decision by the State must be communicated to the petitioners within the stipulated 30-day period. This ensures a swift administrative resolution to a matter that affects the general public's right to information and legal documentation.

The High Court has effectively placed the onus on the Punjab government to justify its policy of charging for digital copies of police reports. By mandating a "speaking order," the court has ensured that the State's response must be grounded in law, particularly in light of the BNSS and Supreme Court precedents. The outcome of the representation will determine whether digital access to FIRs in Punjab remains a paid service or reverts to being free of cost.

Date of Decision: 23 April 2026