The recently launched website of the Tamil Nadu Police has drawn criticism from sections of the legal community after it restricted public access to First Information Reports (FIRs), allowing only specific parties connected to a case to view or download the documents.
As reported in The Hindu, under the new system, only the accused, the victim, or the complainant in a case can access the FIR through the portal. Members of the general public and third parties are no longer able to view or download FIRs from the website.
The portal has been developed as part of the CCTNS 2.0 (Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems) upgrade and integrated with the Interoperable Criminal Justice System (ICJS). Through this integration, police records can be shared in real time with courts, forensic science laboratories, prisons, and prosecution departments.
Authorities say key ICJS applications such as e-Sakshya, used for digital evidence management, and e-Summon, which enables electronic service of summons, have already been implemented across the State.
Advocates Raise Accessibility Concerns
However, defence lawyers and legal practitioners have raised concerns that even advocates are unable to access FIRs through the portal.
Advocate S. Karthikeyan said the system poses practical difficulties for many citizens. According to him, individuals must register their personal details, including mobile numbers and email IDs, and create login credentials in order to access most services under CCTNS 2.0.
He argued that such requirements could disadvantage non-literate, rural, and elderly citizens, who may be forced to rely on private browsing centres to complete the registration process.
Karthikeyan also questioned whether the mandatory collection of personal data for accessing services complies with the provisions of the **Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
Another advocate practising before the Madras High Court, M. Palanimuthu, said that providing controlled access to advocates would benefit the justice system and save valuable court time.
He said that if advocates were given dedicated login credentials, they could interact directly with officials on behalf of clients. This would enable them to serve copies of applications to prosecutors and investigating officers, as well as communicate requests to prison authorities for inmates, including applications for medical treatment.
Palanimuthu added that electronic acknowledgement of submissions through the portal could help streamline several processes.
Some advocates also complained that documents downloaded by authorised users from the portal are often unclear, which could create complications in legal proceedings such as accident compensation claims.
Police Cite Privacy Concerns
Officials from the State Crime Records Bureau defended the new system, stating that the website was designed after detailed deliberation.
They explained that while the previous website allowed third-party access to FIRs, the facility had been withdrawn in the new portal to safeguard privacy.
According to officials, only individuals whose mobile numbers were recorded during FIR registration—the complainant, victim, or accused—are now able to retrieve the document.
They argued that making FIRs publicly accessible online could reveal sensitive details. For example, in cases involving hurt or criminal intimidation, the FIR might contain abusive words allegedly used by the accused. Similarly, in theft or robbery cases, details of household items could become publicly available.
Despite the privacy argument, some legal experts have questioned the decision to restrict access to FIRs.
Advocate Naveenkumar Murthy said that FIRs are generally considered public documents and should ordinarily be accessible to the public, except in limited cases where the victim’s identity or privacy needs to be protected.
He also pointed out that the Madras High Court had directed the State in May 2025 to implement the CCTNS 2.0 system by September 2025, noting that the rollout had already been delayed.
Murthy argued that preventing access to FIRs through the portal effectively denies the press and the public their legal right to information and access to justice.
The issue has now triggered a broader debate over how to balance privacy protections with transparency and public access to criminal records in the era of digital policing.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
