Uttarakhand HC asks police portal to show why sensitive FIRs cannot be downloaded

The petitioner filed a public interest petition alleging that accused persons, persons connected with criminal cases, and members of the public were unable to download First Information Reports (FIRs) from the Uttarakhand CCTNS Portal.

The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s directions in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India & Another , particularly the requirement that FIRs, except those relating to sensitive offences, be uploaded on the police or State website within the prescribed period.

The State informed the Court that FIRs could be accessed through the Citizen Portal and Devbhoomi Mobile App and that an earlier technical problem had been resolved.

After the petitioner continued to report difficulty accessing the system, the Court directed the State to produce a technical person to demonstrate the functionality of the portal and application.

On 23 September 2026, the technical team demonstrated that registered users could download FIRs through the Citizen Portal and Mobile App; the Court also noted that 70 FIR-download hits had been recorded on 22 September 2026.

The State clarified that FIRs involving sensitive offences, including sexual offences, insurgency, terrorism, offences under the POCSO Act, and related offences, were not uploaded.

Whether the State had ensured effective access to and downloading of FIRs through the CCTNS Citizen Portal and Devbhoomi Mobile App in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions in Youth Bar Association of India

Whether the State should provide an indication or explanation on the portal where an FIR was unavailable because it related to a sensitive or otherwise exempt category of offence.

The Court applied the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India & Another , (2016) 9 SCC 473, para 12(d), under which FIRs must ordinarily be uploaded on the police or official State website within 24 hours of registration, subject to extension up to 48 hours, and in cases involving geographical connectivity problems up to a maximum of 72 hours.

The rule contains an exception for sensitive offences, including sexual offences, offences relating to insurgency and terrorism, offences under the POCSO Act, and other offences of a similar nature, which are not required to be uploaded.

The Court further applied the principle that the online system should be sufficiently transparent to inform users why a particular FIR is unavailable.

The Court examined the State’s assertion that the technical problem affecting access to FIRs had been resolved by requiring registration on the Citizen Portal and enabling access through both the portal and the Mobile App.

The technical team demonstrated the downloading process and successfully downloaded multiple FIRs before the Court, while the record of 70 downloads on 22 September 2026 supported the conclusion that the system was operational.

Accordingly, the Court found that the petitioner’s principal grievance regarding the general availability and downloadability of FIRs had been addressed.

However, although sensitive FIRs were lawfully excluded under Youth Bar Association of India , the Court considered it necessary that users be informed that such FIRs existed but were unavailable because of their sensitive classification.

The State therefore undertook to examine and implement an appropriate feature on the system.

It directed the respondents to examine and enable a system feature indicating the details or unavailability of FIRs falling within the exempt sensitive categories, so that users would know the reason for non-availability.

As the petitioner’s grievance had been duly addressed and no further issue survived, the Court closed the PIL proceedings.