CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1425 OF 2025
(@SLP (CRL) NO. 13324 OF 2024)
Background of the Case
This case is built around two students pursuing their B.Tech degree from IIT, Delhi, namely, Ayush Ashna and Anil Kumar. Both of them belonged to the SC community. They were found dead in their hostel rooms on 8th July 2023 and 1st September 2023, respectively. Post-mortem reports attributed to asphyxia resulting from hanging as the cause of their death. The families of both the students filed complaints with the Delhi Police contending that the deaths were murders, alleging castebased discrimination and harassment. The police failed to register FIRs and instead conducted only inquest inquiry u/s 174 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The case was closed reasoning suicide due to academic pressure and the student’s incapability to cope with the same.
The families proceeded with a Writ of Mandamus before the Delhi High Court u/a 226 and 227, directing the police to register FIRs and conduct an independent inquiry into the matter. The petition was dismissed on the ground that no caste-based discrimination was recorded during the lifetimes of the students and no ground for the issuance of mandamus has been reflected. The appellants preferred a Special leave Petition before the Apex Court, converting the matter into a Criminal Appeal.
Issues involved
Whether any measures should be adopted at the national level to address the growing suicide rates among students in Higher Educational institutions.
Whether recourse to inquest proceedings under Section 174 of CrPC bypasses the need of FIR registration?
- Whether there exists any discretion to the police in assessing the credibility of a complaint before registering an FIR where the complaint discloses a cognizable offence?
- Whether the failure to register an FIR in a case filed under the SC/ST (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 violates the express mandate of Section 18-A of the Act?
- Whether the Higher Educational institutions have an institutional responsibility to safeguard the students mental wellness and ensure compliance with criminal laws in cases of student deaths on campus?
Rules / Legal provisions Applied
Section 154 CrPC: Mandatory registration of an FIR upon receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence. The police do not exercise any discretion to refuse registration or to conduct inquest proceedings to assess credibility.
Section 174 CrPC: provides for police inquiry in cases of unnatural or suspicious death the cope of this provision is limited to ascertaining the apparent cause of death only.
Section 18-A pf the SC/ST Act: Expressly prevents any preliminary enquiry for registration of FIR for offences under the Act. No prior approval is required to me made by the police officer making the arrest.
Article 15, Constitution of India: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of caste.
Reasoning of the Court
- Mandatory registration of FIR u/s 154
Applying Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. (2013), the court held that the police owes a duty to promptly register an FIR in cases where an informant advances to the police with information regarding a cognizable offence. The police authorities do not hold any discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry to access the credibility of the complaint before the registration of the FIR.1 The court held that reasonableness and credibility are not condition precedents to the filing of FIR, invoking the case of State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal.
- Distinction between Section 174 and 154 of CrPC
The court clarified that, while 174 proceedings are limited to the extent of ascertaining the apparent cause of death, FIR under 154 constitutes an investigation into an offence. The court observed that inquest proceedings are not meant to figure out who the offenders are and should not be equated with investigation into cognizable offences u/s 160 and 161 of CrPC respectively. In light of the facts of the case, the police having complied with 174 proceedings cannot close the matter without registering an FIR.
Mandate of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
The court highlighted that u/s 18-A of the SC/ST Act, a preliminary enquiry is not mandated for the registration of an FIR. The complaints filed by the families disclosed cognizable offences, including offences under the Act, making it doubly mandatory for the police to register FIRs without any preliminary enquiry.
- Doctrine of Loco Parentis and Institutional Responsibility
The court emphasized the duty of educational institutions to maintain the safety and well-being of its students. Under the principle of loco parentis, the authorities are obligated to safeguard the student’s interests and welfare. The court also emphasized the duty extends beyond ensuring academic excellence to safeguarding student’s mental wellness. In cases of suicides, the institution bears an unequivocal duty to promptly lodge an FIR.
Necessity of a National Task Force
Owing to the increasing number of students committing suicides, the Apex court deemed it necessary for the constitution of a National Task force to go beyond the mere registration of an FIR and address the mental health concerns of students and prevent the engagement of students with suicides. The Task Force was required to curate comprehensive reports on the identification of the predominant causes that lead to the commission of suicides, analyze the regulatory framework in place and recommend measures for strengthening safeguards.
Judgment / Conclusion
The Apex Court allowed the appeal reinstating the limited scope of Section 174 proceedings and the inability to apply it as a substitute for a full investigation into cognizable offences. The court directed the South-West District, New Delhi DCP to register an FIR in this case of the death of the students and depute an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of police to initiate investigation.
The court also constituted a National Task Force that was to be chaired by justice S. Ravindra Bhat, former judge of the Supreme Court of India. The Task Force was to address the mental health concerns and prevent suicides among suicides in higher Educational Institutions. It was also requested to present an interim report within four months and a final report within eight months of its constitution. The Union of India was directed by the court to deposit an amount of Rupees twenty lacks rupees with the Registry within two weeks for the initial operations of the task Force.
Analysis
This case provided a landmark judgment affirming the non-negotiable nature of FIR registration under Section 154 CrPC and the limited scope of preliminary proceedings under Section 174 CrPC. The court clarified the position that execution of inquest proceedings will not amount to a justification of formal criminal investigation, especially when the complaint is one that discloses cognizable offences under special legislations, in this case the SC/ST Act. The categorical rejection of any police discretion on the registration of FIRs reinforces the principle of equal access to the criminal justice system for marginalized communities.
The utilization of the doctrine of loco parentis to prompt institutional accountability on Higher Educational Institutions is a pivotal jurisprudential development. The institutions bear both a moral and legal duty to secure prompt reporting and transparency. The observation by the Apex court in this case that no institution, however eminent, stands above the due process of law is a necessary corrective to manage incidents internally.
The constitution of the National task Force reflected the need for a systematic and regulatory response mechanism. With the increase in number of suicides among students, the need for structural reform is imminent. Such constitution of the task Force is hoped to provide a promising policy reform. The judgment plays itself as a corrective remedy in the case of Anil Kumar and Ayush Ashna and portrayed as a foundational framework for addressing the escalating crisis in Indian Higher Education.
THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY SUDHIKSHA FROM O P JINDAL GLOBAL UNIVERSITY
