Supreme Court

Supreme Court clarifies‍ police Duty to Register FIRs, Even Without Initial Verification

New Delhi: The supreme Court ⁢has affirmed that police forces are obligated to register a First Data report (FIR)⁤ if a complaint ​reveals a prima facie cognizable offense, ‌even without instantly assessing the information’s complete genuineness or credibility. ‌The ruling reinforces established legal precedent ⁣and ⁤clarifies the scope of police duty in ​initiating⁣ investigations.

This decision ⁣impacts citizens ⁢across India by ensuring that ⁣potentially criminal conduct is promptly addressed by‌ law enforcement. It underscores the principle that ⁤initial skepticism shouldn’t delay the⁣ examination ‌of possible crimes,and ⁣provides a safeguard‍ against ​police inaction based on preliminary doubts about a complainant’s ⁣claims. The Court’s reiteration​ of this⁣ principle is particularly relevant ​given‍ ongoing debates about police accountability‍ and‍ efficiency.

the Court observed that police are not required to delve into the veracity‌ of a complaint before registering an FIR,⁤ stating, “It is indeed the duty⁢ of the police to register an FIR if‌ a ⁢prima facie ​cognizable offence is made out, the police is not required to go​ into the genuineness and credibility of the said information.” ‌This principle was previously established in ‍ Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006) 2 SCC 677, wich held that the credibility of information is not a prerequisite for FIR registration.

The ruling came as the Court upheld a Delhi ⁢High Court directive ordering the registration of​ FIRs against former Commissioner of⁤ Delhi Police, Neeraj ‍Kumar, and inspector Vinod Kumar Pandey. The⁢ complaints, ‍dating back to 2000, allege⁤ intimidation,‍ falsification of records, and forgery during ⁣their CBI deputation.The judgment pertains to S.L.P. (C) No. 7900 ‌of 2019 and‌ connected cases, titled Vinod Kumar Pandey ‌& ⁤Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors. and connected cases, and⁤ is cited as 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 887.

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment

Supreme Court Questions‍ center‌ on Delayed Governor Action on State Bills

New Delhi: ​the Supreme Court sharply‌ questioned ⁢the central ‍government’s stance on the delays in governors acting on bills passed by state legislatures,asking how it could dismiss concerns raised by states as ‍”false alarms” when bills remain ⁢pending with governors for years. ​A five-judge bench,⁤ comprising Chief Justice of India BR ⁣Gavai, Justice⁣ surya Kant, Justice ⁣Vikram nath, ‍Justice PS ​Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar,⁢ is currently hearing‍ a Presidential Reference ‌on​ 14 questions related to the ⁣powers of governors and‍ the timelines for acting on state legislation.

The pointed inquiry came during ‍ongoing ‌arguments concerning the constitutional validity of indefinite delays by governors in granting assent to bills. advocate Avani Bansal argued ‍that the Constitution delineates four ⁢categories of timelines for presidential/governor action, ranging from “reasonableness” to⁤ definite periods, and “as soon as may be” versus “as soon as possible,” ⁣asserting the⁢ latter demands a higher degree of urgency. She urged the Court‍ to clarify the distinction.

The Presidential Reference arose ‌from concerns over governors withholding bills passed by state legislatures, prompting states like Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, ​Karnataka, Kerala,​ and⁢ Punjab to argue against granting governors the ⁢power to indefinitely⁢ delay ‌assent. Senior Advocates Nirajan ⁣Reddy ​(for the State of Telangana), P ​wilson, Gopal Shankarnarayan (for ‌two intervenors), Siddharth ⁣Luthra ⁢(for the State of​ Andhra Pradesh), and Advocates Amit Kumar (for the state of Meghalaya) have⁤ also ⁣presented arguments. Previous days of hearings have seen Senior Advocate Kapil ⁤Sibal argue ​that the Constitution should not be interpreted in ‍a way that renders governors unaccountable, and ⁣disagreements with Senior Advocate ‌Abhishek Singhvi’s argument⁣ that governors have no discretion when acting on ⁣bills.

The Governor‘s Assent: An executive, Not Legislative, Act

The core principle established by the Constitution is that discretionary power, as existed​ under the 1935 ‍Act, should not influence its interpretation. The Governor’s role regarding Bills ‌is largely defined by a duty to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. ‌Article 200 outlines this, requiring the Governor to follow ministerial advice when deciding whether to assent to,⁣ withhold assent from, return‍ for reconsideration, or reserve a Bill for Presidential consideration. The ​only exception lies in the second proviso to Article 200, allowing discretion only when a Bill potentially undermines the high Court’s constitutional position.While the Governor is part of ‍the State Legislature (Article 168), the act of assenting ⁢to ‌a Bill under Article 200 is not a⁤ legislative power. Instead, it is fundamentally an exercise of ⁣the State’s executive‌ power, albeit one with legislative effect ⁤- the declaration that⁣ a ⁣Bill has become law.

The Constitution clearly delineates legislative power in Chapter IV, with Article 213 covering the​ promulgation of Ordinances, which also requires the Council ​of Ministers’ advice. A seven-judge bench ruling in Shamsher Singh confirmed ⁤that all other Governor’s powers are executive. Even though Article 200 appears under the heading “Legislative Procedure,” a Bill requires full legislative approval‍ to become law.

As executive power resides ⁣with the Government (Article 154),the Governor’s assent functions as a formal certification,made on the advice ⁢of the legislature.The Governor, though part of the legislature, cannot participate in its proceedings – lacking voting⁣ rights or the ability to deliberate (Article 158(1)). Moreover, the Governor’s communication with the legislature (Articles 175 & 176) and powers ‍under Articles 200, 201, and 257(1) are all exercised on ministerial advice.