Jharkhand High Court Suggests Integration Of Women Helpline 181 With 112; Directs Compliance With Mandatory Zero FIR Provisions In Sexual Offence Cases
The Court observed that despite binding Supreme Court precedents and mandatory provisions under the BNSS, police authorities continue to delay registration of Zero FIRs in sexual offence cases, resulting in delayed medical examination of rape and POCSO victims and jeopardising prosecution proceedings.
The Jharkhand High Court has directed the State Government to examine the proposal for designating the women-centric helpline number “181” as the primary emergency helpline for sexual violence, domestic abuse and gender-based emergencies with automatic integration to the emergency response system “112”.
The Court also observed that, despite binding Supreme Court precedents, Ministry of Home Affairs advisories, and mandatory provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, police authorities continue to delay registration of Zero FIRs, thereby causing delay in medical examination of victims and recording of statements, which ultimately jeopardises prosecution cases.
The Court was hearing a suo motu public interest matter concerning issues faced by rape survivors and victims of sexual violence in Jharkhand, including refusal to register Zero FIRs, lack of shelter and rehabilitation facilities, delay in compensation, deficiencies in One Stop Centres, counselling support, and inadequacies in institutional mechanisms available to victims.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice MS Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar observed: “In view of the binding precedent of the judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred hereinabove coupled with the mandatory provision of BNSS, 2023, lodging of Zero FIR is obligatory upon the police authorities irrespective of the territorial jurisdiction of the incident”.
“The police personnel are duty-bound to strictly adhere to the mandate of SOP, …it is, however, evident that the aforesaid mandatory provisions are still not being scrupulously followed by the police authorities, resulting into delay in the medical examination of rape victims/victims of POCSO offences and in recording of their statements, thereby jeopardising the prosecution case”, the Bench added.
The Bench further directed the State Government to “consider designating the number ‘181’ (i.e. women-centric helpline for sexual violence, domestic abuse and gender-based emergencies) as the primary helpline number with automatic back-end linkage to the helpline number ‘112’ i.e. the emergency response support system for immediate police, medical and rescue response”.
Advocate Sumeet Gadodia appeared as Amicus Curiae. The State was represented by Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G.-II.
Background
The proceedings originated from a Public Interest Litigation raising concerns regarding the treatment and rehabilitation of rape survivors and victims of sexual violence in Jharkhand. The petition sought directions relating to registration of Zero FIRs, accommodation facilities for rape victims, compensation mechanisms, speedy trials, rehabilitation support, counselling, educational support for children born out of rape incidents, and victim-sensitive police procedures.
The Court subsequently took suo motu cognisance of the broader issues involved in the matter after noticing that the proceedings disclosed significant systemic concerns relating to the implementation of statutory protections available to victims of sexual violence.
During the proceedings, suggestions and reports were placed before the Court by the intervenor, JHALSA, and the learned Amicus Curiae regarding deficiencies in institutional mechanisms functioning within the State. These included concerns relating to non-registration of Zero FIRs, lack of proper shelter homes for adult survivors, inadequate staffing and infrastructure in One Stop Centres, absence of counselling facilities, delay in victim compensation, and lack of coordinated emergency response systems.
Court’s Observation
The High Court extensively examined the legal framework governing registration of Zero FIRs and referred to decisions of the Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh.
The Court observed that police authorities are duty-bound to register FIRs in cognizable offences irrespective of territorial jurisdiction and cannot refuse registration merely because the offence occurred outside the local jurisdiction of the police station concerned.
The Bench further referred to advisories issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Bureau of Police Research & Development concerning mandatory registration and transfer of Zero FIRs.
The Court held: “Lodging of Zero FIR is obligatory upon the police authorities irrespective of the territorial jurisdiction of the incident.”
The Bench further observed: “The police personnel are duty-bound to strictly adhere to the mandate of SOP.”
The Court also noted that failure to comply with statutory requirements relating to registration of Zero FIRs continued to result in delay in medical examination of rape victims and recording of statements, thereby jeopardising prosecution cases.
The Court examined the functioning of One Stop Centres across Jharkhand and noted that although such centres had been established in all districts under the “Mission Shakti” framework, several centres suffered from serious infrastructural and staffing deficiencies.
The Bench observed that reports submitted before the Court disclosed a lack of permanent staff, poor sanitation, non-functional kitchens, absence of CCTV cameras, shortage of security personnel, unhygienic washrooms, lack of safe drinking water, and inadequate counselling support in several centres functioning across the State.
The Court further noted that while some centres were functioning satisfactorily, several others required urgent infrastructural improvement and staffing support to ensure proper victim rehabilitation and safe residential facilities.
The Bench accordingly directed the State Government to consider and implement the suggestions made by the Amicus Curiae regarding infrastructure, staffing, hygiene, safety, counselling and monitoring of One Stop Centres functioning in Jharkhand.
The Court also examined the NALSA Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault and other statutory provisions governing victim compensation under the BNSS framework.
The Bench observed that compensation and rehabilitation of rape survivors cannot be delayed merely because criminal proceedings remain pending or the accused is untraced.
The Court held: “The concerned courts dealing with the cases relating to sexual offences shall, immediately upon receipt of information regarding commission of such offences by registration of FIR, make an enquiry as to the immediate needs of the victims for interim relief or rehabilitation.”
The Bench further directed that compensation awarded to victims, whether interim or final, should be paid within thirty days from the date of the order.
The Court also directed courts dealing with sexual offences to strictly adhere to timelines prescribed under Section 346 of the BNSS, 2023, for expeditious completion of trials.
While considering additional suggestions advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae, the Court emphasised the need for an integrated emergency response mechanism for women facing sexual violence, domestic abuse and gender-based emergencies.
The Court directed the State Government to examine the proposal for designating helpline number “181” as the primary women-centric helpline and integrating it with the emergency response system “112” through automatic backend linkage to facilitate immediate police, medical and rescue intervention.
The Bench observed that coordinated emergency response systems are necessary to ensure timely assistance to victims and effective implementation of statutory protections available under the criminal justice framework.
Conclusion
The Jharkhand High Court extensively examined institutional mechanisms available for rape survivors and victims of sexual violence, including Zero FIR registration, shelter facilities, compensation mechanisms, counselling support, emergency response systems, and trial procedures.
The Court ultimately issued multiple directions to the State Government, police authorities, courts and institutional bodies for strengthening victim protection and rehabilitation mechanisms across Jharkhand.
The Court also directed the State Government to examine the integration of the women-centric helpline number “181” with the emergency response system “112” for ensuring immediate police, medical and rescue response in cases involving sexual violence and gender-based emergencies.
Cause Title: Court on its Own Motion v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Appearances
Amicus Curiae: Advocate Sumeet Gadodia with Advocate Shruti Shekhar
Respondents: Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G.-II; Advocate Atanu Banerjee