Hindustan Times: Chandigarh: Thursday, 12 March 2026.
In December 2012, a Punjab resident filed an application with the police seeking daily diary orders of the Jagraon police station of the period of 2004-05 in relation to an FIR registered in July 2004
The Punjab and Haryana
high court has held that an accused, by invoking the provisions of the Right to
Information Act (RTI) Act, is not entitled to access a police case diary
relating to his criminal case, particularly when the investigation or trial is
still in progress.
While dealing with an appeal filed by the Punjab government against the state information commission’s decision, the high court bench of justice Kuldeep Tiwari said that if Sections 8(1)(h) and 22 of the RTI Act are read together with Section 172(3) of the CrPC, it clearly demonstrates that these provisions “function in tandem”. Now, the CrPC has been replaced with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
“..the legislative intent behind Section 172(3) of the CrPC is to preserve the confidentiality of investigation records. The restriction imposed through Section 172(3) of the CrPC inherently indicates that disclosing the police case diary would impede the ongoing investigation or trial, and there comes exceptions carved out under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act to achieve the same object,” the court said. It added that the act of the public information officer declining the applicant access to police case diary of a criminal case, trial whereof was in progress at the relevant time, is legally sustainable.
“The Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act complements and subserves the underlying objective of Section 172(3) of the CrPC. The provisions of the CrPC expressly curtail the disclosure of police case diaries to an accused while an investigation or trial is pending, and the exemption enshrined in Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act ensures the enforcement of this prohibition,” the court said.
The Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts the PIO from disclosing any information that would impede the process of investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders. While Section 22 of the RTI Act provides that the provisions of the RTI Act shall have an overriding effect over any other law in force, or any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
Section 172 of the CrPC mandates that every police officer conducting an investigation must maintain a diary recording the time at which information is received, the time at which the investigation commences and concludes, the places visited by him during the course of the investigation, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation.
While courts can summon police diaries during trial or probe but accused is not entitled to inspect or access the same.
In December 2012, a Punjab resident filed an application with the police seeking daily diary orders of the Jagraon police station of the period of 2004-05 in relation to an FIR registered in July 2004. As information was denied. he approached SIC and in 2016, the SIC ruled in his favour and imposed the penalty on a police officer and also awarded compensation.
It was against this order the Punjab government had approached the high court in 2016 arguing that the RTI Act cannot be invoked to secure information by an accused about a police case diary of a case, trial whereof is in progress.
On the other hand, the complainant, who had also become a party in the HC, had contended that to ensure a fair trial, an accused has the right to seek information under the RTI Act about the case diary and other records.
In December 2012, a Punjab resident filed an application with the police seeking daily diary orders of the Jagraon police station of the period of 2004-05 in relation to an FIR registered in July 2004
While dealing with an appeal filed by the Punjab government against the state information commission’s decision, the high court bench of justice Kuldeep Tiwari said that if Sections 8(1)(h) and 22 of the RTI Act are read together with Section 172(3) of the CrPC, it clearly demonstrates that these provisions “function in tandem”. Now, the CrPC has been replaced with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
“..the legislative intent behind Section 172(3) of the CrPC is to preserve the confidentiality of investigation records. The restriction imposed through Section 172(3) of the CrPC inherently indicates that disclosing the police case diary would impede the ongoing investigation or trial, and there comes exceptions carved out under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act to achieve the same object,” the court said. It added that the act of the public information officer declining the applicant access to police case diary of a criminal case, trial whereof was in progress at the relevant time, is legally sustainable.
“The Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act complements and subserves the underlying objective of Section 172(3) of the CrPC. The provisions of the CrPC expressly curtail the disclosure of police case diaries to an accused while an investigation or trial is pending, and the exemption enshrined in Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act ensures the enforcement of this prohibition,” the court said.
The Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts the PIO from disclosing any information that would impede the process of investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders. While Section 22 of the RTI Act provides that the provisions of the RTI Act shall have an overriding effect over any other law in force, or any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
Section 172 of the CrPC mandates that every police officer conducting an investigation must maintain a diary recording the time at which information is received, the time at which the investigation commences and concludes, the places visited by him during the course of the investigation, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation.
While courts can summon police diaries during trial or probe but accused is not entitled to inspect or access the same.
In December 2012, a Punjab resident filed an application with the police seeking daily diary orders of the Jagraon police station of the period of 2004-05 in relation to an FIR registered in July 2004. As information was denied. he approached SIC and in 2016, the SIC ruled in his favour and imposed the penalty on a police officer and also awarded compensation.
It was against this order the Punjab government had approached the high court in 2016 arguing that the RTI Act cannot be invoked to secure information by an accused about a police case diary of a case, trial whereof is in progress.
On the other hand, the complainant, who had also become a party in the HC, had contended that to ensure a fair trial, an accused has the right to seek information under the RTI Act about the case diary and other records.
.JPG)
.JPG)
