Less than a fortnight after the imposition of charges for downloading first information reports and related records came under judicial scanner, the Punjab and Haryana High Court asked the PIL-petitioner to clarify whether such documents was a sovereign duty.The Bench also asked the petitioner to specify since when was Punjab charging fees.At the onset, the Bench directed the petitioners to formally place the relevant policy on record and also provide the other details. The matter is now scheduled to come up for hearing for April 23. The petition, filed by advocates Vasu Ranjan Shandilya and Abhishek Malhotra, has challenged the Punjab government’s policy of charging fees for downloading FIRs, daily diary reports (DDRs) and lost information reports from the Punjab Police Saanjh portal. Among other things, the PIL said paid access to such documents created an “illegal barrier” to transparency and access to justice.The plea squarely questioned the legality of monetising access to core criminal justice documents that, by law, were required to be supplied free of cost. The petition contended that the impugned policy lacked statutory backing and was not even placed in the public domain, thereby failing the test of transparency.It asserted that the move ran contrary to the mandate of Section 173(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which required that a copy of the FIR be provided free of cost, and also violates Rule 24.5 of the Punjab Police Rules, ensuring free supply of such documents.Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in “Youth Bar Association of India vs Union of India”, the plea said free and easy public access to FIRs was integral to transparency in the criminal justice system. Any financial barrier defeated the very purpose of making FIRs accessible online.The High Court was told that the imposition of charges infringes fundamental rights, including equality before law and the right to information as part of free speech, apart from impinging upon personal liberty. The plea further invoked the constitutional mandate of equal access to justice, arguing that paid access disproportionately affected ordinary citizens seeking information about criminal proceedings.The petition sought quashing of the policy, restoration of free digital access to FIRs and DDRs, and refund of the amount allegedly charged, along with interest. An interim direction was also sought for immediate suspension of the fee regime pending adjudication.