Polity · 23 Aug 2026

Lalita Kumari v State of UP mandatory FIR

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's ruling in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014):

  1. It held that registration of an FIR is mandatory if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
  2. It removed police discretion at the intake stage regarding whether to register such an FIR.
  3. It specifically exempted complaints against police personnel from the mandatory FIR registration requirement.
A1 only
B2 only
C1 and 2 only
D1, 2 and 3
This question is based on: One Month, Five Police Stations, Zero FIRs - Until Rahul Gandhi Sat Down
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 23 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

Four Delhi police stations reportedly declined for a month to register an FIR over an alleged use of force during a protest, until a Leader of the Opposition's personal intervention and a general diary entry (recording that a DCP-rank officer ordered an anti-riot gun fired) forced action; the Supreme Court has since constituted an independent five-member High-Powered Enquiry Committee.

Why for UPSC

UPSC often tests whether a landmark judgment's actual holding is being distorted by a real-world enforcement gap - here, distinguishing what Lalita Kumari legally mandates from where implementation has failed.

Prelims summary

Lalita Kumari v. State of UP (2014) makes FIR registration mandatory for cognizable offences with no police discretion at intake and carries no exception for complaints against police personnel - though enforcement of that duty against the police's own conduct has proven weak in practice.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.