Denial of FIR copies to an accused undermines the right to a fair trial under Article 21. Critically examine with reference to recent judicial interventions.

The FIR, registered under Section 173 BNSS (earlier Section 154 CrPC), is the document that sets the criminal process in motion [1]. Since fair trial is read into Article 21, withholding it from the accused is largely indefensible — though disclosure is not wholly unqualified.

How denial undermines fair trial

• Defence preparation collapses without knowledge of the allegations; Section 230 BNSS (successor to Section 207 CrPC) obliges the Magistrate to furnish free copies of the police report, FIR and relied-upon documents [1].
• Remedies become illusory: anticipatory bail, quashing under Section 528 BNSS, or challenging a diluted or inflated FIR all presuppose access to its text [2].
• Accountability gap: delay at the police-station level converts a statutory entitlement into a discretionary favour, forcing citizens into costly writ litigation.
• Chilling effect: withheld FIRs against journalists and whistleblowers convert criminal procedure into an instrument of intimidation [4].

Recent judicial interventions

• In Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court directed that FIRs be uploaded within 24 hours, that police supply a certified copy within 24 hours of application, and that courts do so within two working days [3].
• In August 2026, the Court directed Ghaziabad Police to hand a journalist the FIR copy and CCTV footage, extended protection from coercive action, and relegated the quashing plea to the Allahabad High Court — an interim, not final, ruling [4].

The other side

• The Court itself carved out sensitive categories — sexual offences, POCSO, terrorism and insurgency — where blanket online disclosure could endanger victims or investigations [3].
• Safeguards are procedural, not absolute denial: a graded appeal to the Superintendent of Police and a certified copy from the court remain available [3].
• BNSS also deems electronic supply valid compliance, easing delivery [1][2].

Thus the balance already struck by law favours disclosure, with narrow exceptions. Going forward, mandatory time-bound e-supply through police portals, departmental accountability for non-compliance, and periodic audits would ensure the right is realised at the police station rather than at the Supreme Court — giving substance to Article 21's promise of procedural fairness.