Summary
Where the parents and brother of two Scheduled Caste students of IIT Delhi, found hanging in their hostel rooms, complained of caste-based harassment and foul play but the police merely held an inquest under Section 174 CrPC and closed the matter, the Supreme Court held that an inquest cannot substitute for registration of an FIR when the information discloses a cognizable offence, directed registration of FIRs and investigation by an officer not below the rank of ACP, and constituted a National Task Force to address students' mental health and prevent suicides in higher educational institutions.
Issues
- Whether the police were justified in closing the matter after an inquiry under Section 174 CrPC without registering an FIR, i.e. whether recourse to inquest proceedings obviates the registration of an FIR when the complaints disclose cognizable offences.
- What the scope of an inquest under Section 174 CrPC is, as distinct from investigation into a cognizable offence following registration of an FIR under Section 154.
- Whether a preliminary inquiry is permissible before registering an FIR where the information discloses a cognizable offence, including an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- What institutional measures are required to address the pattern of student suicides in higher educational institutions.
Provisions considered
- Section 174, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973An inquest is confined to ascertaining whether a death is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or caused by an animal and the apparent cause of death; though the section uses the word 'investigation', it is only an inquiry, statements recorded during it are no substitute for Section 161 statements, and it is not an investigation to find out who the offenders are. Closing the matter after such an inquiry was disapproved. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 40)
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Where information discloses a cognizable offence the officer in charge has no option but to register an FIR; reasonableness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent, and no preliminary inquiry to assess credibility is permissible (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P.). (¶¶ 24, 25, 29, 32, 33, 34, 39, 40)
- Section 18A, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989The provision, in unambiguous language, dispenses with any preliminary enquiry for the registration of an FIR against any person and with approval for arrest; it left no room for the authorities to inquire into the reasons for the suicides when the complaints made categorical allegations of caste-based harassment and discrimination. (¶¶ 42, 43)
- Section 3(1)(q), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989The offence alleged in the complaints, treated by the Court as a cognizable offence attracting the mandatory FIR requirement. (¶ 42)
- Article 15, Constitution of IndiaCaste-based discrimination on college campuses is in clear violation of Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on the ground of caste. (¶ 58)
Held
- Proceedings under Section 174 CrPC are distinct from proceedings on a complaint: the inquest ascertains only the apparent cause of death and the evidence taken is very short; it is not to be equated with investigation into a cognizable offence, which begins with information under Section 154(1), culminates in registration of an FIR and ends with a chargesheet or final report under Section 173 (Pedda Narayana; Ashok Kumar Todi; Manoj Kumar Sharma). (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
- When an informant gives information disclosing a cognizable offence the police owe a duty to promptly register an FIR and investigate under Section 154; they have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry to assess the credibility of the information, a practice contrary to the established principles of criminal law (Bhajan Lal; Lalita Kumari). Timely registration preserves evidence and protects victims' rights. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35)
- The complaints of the father and the brother, alleging caste-based harassment by hostel inmates and faculty, that one student had to change hostel after his category was revealed, and that the other death was murder born of caste hatred, disclosed cognizable offences. Even if the police believed the allegations to be untrue or the product of grief, they could say so only after registering an FIR and investigating, and could then file a closure report; closing the matter after a Section 174 inquiry is not approved, and no shortcut is permissible because the incident occurred at an eminent institution. (¶¶ 36, 37, 38, 39, 40)
- Suicide itself is not a cognizable offence; what is cognizable is abetment of suicide, so a complaint must disclose abetment by the person named before an FIR can be registered. Here the complaints also alleged an offence under Section 3(1)(q) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, and Section 18A expressly dispenses with any preliminary enquiry for registration of an FIR under that Act, which was enacted to enlarge criminal liability for atrocities not covered by the IPC (National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights). (¶¶ 41, 42, 43)
- The Ministry of Home Affairs advisories of 12.10.2015 and 05.02.2024 reflect the law: registration of an FIR is mandatory where the information discloses a cognizable offence; a preliminary inquiry is permissible only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, in limited categories such as matrimonial, commercial, medical negligence, corruption or abnormally delayed cases, must be completed within seven days, and all such information and any decision to hold an inquiry must be recorded in the General Diary, with action against officers who fail to register an FIR and a copy of any closure entry supplied to the informant within a week. (¶¶ 44, 45, 46)
- The administration of every educational institution bears heavy responsibility for the safety and well-being of its students and, on any unfortunate incident such as a suicide on campus, has an unequivocal legal and moral duty to promptly lodge an FIR, while the police must register it without refusal or delay; failure by an institution's administration may in a given case be viewed strictly. (¶ 47)
- Taking cognisance of the rising incidence of student suicides attributable to academic pressure, caste-based discrimination, ragging, financial stress and sexual harassment, and holding that universities stand in loco parentis and must ensure students' mental well-being and not merely academic excellence, the Court constituted a National Task Force chaired by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (retd.) to identify the causes of student suicides, assess the adequacy of existing laws and institutional frameworks, and recommend reforms, with authority to make surprise inspections of any higher educational institution and to consult all stakeholders including student bodies and State governments. (¶¶ 49, 54, 56, 57, 61, 66, 69, 74, 75, 76)
Result
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court set aside; the DCP (South-West District, New Delhi) directed to register FIRs on the two written complaints and depute an officer not below the rank of ACP to investigate; National Task Force constituted, with State/UT nodal officers to be nominated; Union of India to deposit Rs.20 lakh with the Registry within two weeks; interim report in four months, final report preferably in eight; matter treated as part-heard and to be listed after four months before the same Bench.