The Cover-Up Begins at the FIR: What the Bulandshahr Case Reveals About Police Discretion

The Cover-Up Starts on Page One

The law on the first information report is not ambiguous. Section 173(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaced Section 154 of the old CrPC, requires the police to record information about a cognizable offence.

In Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013), a Constitution Bench held that if the information discloses a cognizable offence, registering an FIR is mandatory and it grounded that duty in Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty).

The Bulandshahr case shows where that rule breaks down in practice. The police did register an FIR. They simply registered it against no one.

Why an "Unknown Person" FIR Is the Cover-Up Itself

The text says the police must record the information they receive. In practice, the officer writing the FIR decides how that information is framed: who is named, which facts are included and what the document says happened.

The FIR is not just a formality. It fixes the starting point for everything that follows, including the investigation, the evidence collected, the charges framed and, eventually, the trial. Here the accused was reportedly caught on the spot and handed over to the police.

An FIR against an "unknown" motorcycle rider in that situation is not a gap in information. It is a choice. When the court later asked for a report, the petitioner says the police added the name without carrying out any investigation.

That sequence explains the Bench's remark that toeing the line is one thing but bending over is another. The discretion at the FIR stage had been bent to someone else's purpose.

Why "Send It to the CBI" Is Not the Answer The

Bench's oral remark about disbanding the U.P. Police and handing everything to the CBI captures the frustration, but it also shows the limits of the remedy. Constitutional courts can order the CBI to investigate even without a State's consent.

In State of West Bengal v. CPDR (2010), however, the Supreme Court said this power should be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases. Routine transfers would overload the CBI and weaken State police. Police is a State subject (List II, Entry 2) and no central agency can replace thousands of police stations.

The real remedy was spelled out twenty years ago in Prakash Singh vs Union of India (2006): separate investigation from law-and-order duties, insulate police from political pressure through State Security Commissions, guarantee minimum tenure for officers including SHOs and set up Police Complaints Authorities to hear complaints of misconduct.

Most States have complied only partly or on paper.

The Takeaway The Bulandshahr FIR is a

small document that shows a large structural gap. Courts can make registration compulsory and can summon an SHO, but they cannot be present at every police station. Police accountability fails first at the FIR and only structural reform can protect that first step. In the exam, treat the FIR as the gateway to the criminal justice system: the point where discretion is most powerful and least supervised.