The Supreme Court of India issued notice to the Union Government, States and Union Territories on a PIL seeking action against false complaints, fabricated evidence and malicious prosecution. A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant heard Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay’s Article 32 petition.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India issued notice to the Union Government, all States and Union Territories in a Public Interest Litigation seeking measures to curb false complaints, fabricated evidence and malicious prosecution.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pacholi was hearing a petition filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The Petition:
The plea seeks administrative safeguards to prevent the misuse of criminal law through false complaints and to protect the right to life, liberty and dignity of innocent citizens.
The petition seeks directions to governments to install display boards at police stations, court complexes, panchayat and municipal offices, and educational institutions specifying provisions and penalties for false complaints and fabricated evidence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Prayers:
- Complainants be informed about penal consequences before registration of an FIR and
- Complainants to furnish a mandatory undertaking or affidavit affirming the truthfulness of their allegations.
- For a declaration that sentences for false complaints, false charges and false evidence should run consecutively.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
Violation of Fundamental Rights: The petitioner contends that misuse of criminal provisions undermines the rule of law and fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Citing Chapter XIV of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, he argues that although penal provisions exist, no effective administrative framework has been created to prevent abuse.
ALSO READ: “Filing False Cases Reflects Poorly On The Judicial System”: Supreme Court
Low Conviction Rate and Misuse of Law: Relying on NCRB data, the plea claims that low conviction rates under certain special laws are partly attributable to false cases. It refers to provisions such as Section 498A IPC, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
The petition also relies on the Law Commission’s 277th Report on wrongful prosecution and the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews, which recognised reputation as an integral part of the right to life.
Hearing before the Supreme Court:
During the hearing, the Chief Justice emphasised the need to sensitise society about respecting the rights of others.
The CJI observed.
“We will be accused of gagging… but why should we be afraid of gagging? Because people abuse and then disappear away. We need to create a very informed society with sensitising people and they should know fundamental right of their neighborhood also. Principle of fraternity needs to be cultivated,”
The Court also highlighted instances where complaints are allegedly filed without the knowledge of the named complainant.
The CJI said,
“The problem is when false complaints are lodged… the de facto complainant does not even know that it is filed. It is done by fake signs etc and the poor fellow does not even know that he is being exploited by the rich and well off,”
Appearing in person, Upadhyay argued that fabricated cases significantly burden courts.
He submitted,
“This court is not burdened because of genuine but fake cases. The trial courts also. Jhagda hota hai zameen ka but case lagta hai SC/ST ka. Imandar log darr darr ke reh rahe hai. The fabric of rural India is disturbed. Civil ka case criminal ban jata hai,”
Advocate Ashwini highlighted the troubling reality that many cases entering the court system are not rooted in genuine disputes.
He remarked,
“Khet ka dispute hota hai, aur case SC/ST Act ka register ho jata hai.”
This statement illustrates how agricultural disputes are sometimes mischaracterized to fit the criteria of more serious legal frameworks, leading to unnecessary litigation.
Moreover, he also pointed out the complexities within matrimonial disputes.
He stated,
“Husband-wife ka matrimonial dispute hota hai, lekin complaint mein nanad, nandoi, saas-sasur sabko arrest kar diya jata hai.”
The entanglement of extended family members in personal disputes only complicates matters further, often resulting in unjust consequences for individuals who are inadvertently involved.
A critical concern raised by Advocate Ashwini is the absence of effective deterrents against filing false complaints.
He argued,
“Why, My Lord? Because filing a false complaint has practically no effective deterrence.”
This statement encapsulates a troubling loophole in the legal framework that allows mischief-makers to exploit the justice system without fear of repercussions.
He suggested that display boards in police stations and courts outlining punishment for filing false cases could act as a deterrent. Referring to Nambi Narayanan, he pointed out that exoneration often comes only after years of hardship.
Case Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS W.P.(C) NO. 209/2026
Read Live Coverage:
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES