Gujarat High Court Rules Article 226 Cannot Bypass Statutory Remedies for FIRs
The Gujarat High Court has clarified that families of those who die in custody cannot use Article 226 to bypass the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) when seeking FIR registration. The court ruled that the Lalita Kumari mandate does not grant an automatic right to jump straight to a writ petition without first exhausting lower-level legal remedies.
In the landmark Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. case, the Supreme Court mandated that police register an FIR upon receiving information about a cognizable offense. However, the Gujarat High Court bench, led by Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat, has set limits on how this is applied. The bench ruled that petitioners cannot use the Lalita Kumari judgment as a blanket justification to leapfrog over established statutory procedures under the newly implemented Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The court reasoned that the judiciary must adhere to the hierarchy of legal remedies. Before moving the High Court for a writ of mandamus, complainants are expected to follow the designated process—approaching the police hierarchy or a magistrate. This ruling aims to prevent the High Court from being overwhelmed by cases that possess a clear statutory path for resolution, ensuring writ jurisdiction remains a secondary resort rather than a first step.
Glossary
Article 226: A constitutional provision empowering High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and other legal purposes.
Custodial Death: A death occurring while an individual is under the control of police or judicial authorities.
Rate this Study Update
Help other aspirants by rating the quality & accuracy of this current affair article.
Pulse Forums Discussions
Start a dedicated discussion thread or link this article to an active thread for study conversation.