e-FIR Under the BNSS: Bridging the Gap Between Statutory Promise and Portal Reality
Author – Asmi Sharma
B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Student
Acropolis Institute of Management Studies and Research (Indore)
Email – asmi.sharma390@gmail.com
Introduction
The nature of crime has changed faster than the procedure for reporting it. Recognizing this, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) introduced an important reform. Information about a cognizable offence can now be communicated electronically, rather than only in person at a police station. Electronic reporting is meant to make reporting more convenient for victims while creating a transparent, time-stamped record of the complaint.
However, the practical implementation of this framework tells a different story. The language of Section 173 of the BNSS is broad and offence-neutral. Yet the e-FIR portals actually operating across the States accept complaints only for a narrow category of offences. This article examines that gap — between the statutory promise of Section 173 and the offence-specific limitations built into the present e-FIR framework.
What Section 173 Actually Says
The answer to whether every cognizable offence can be electronically reported lies in the language of Section 173 of the BNSS. Section 173(1) provides that:
“Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication to an officer in charge of a police station…”
A closer reading of the provision reveals that, It uses the words “every information,” not “certain offences,” “specified offences,” or “notified offences”. It draws no offence-wise classification and imposes no restriction based on the nature or value of the offence.
The expression “cognizable offence” used in Section 173 is defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the BNSS. It means an offence for which a police officer may arrest a person without warrant in accordance with the First Schedule or any other law for the time being in force. If an offence is cognizable in nature, Section 173 itself does not distinguish between one cognizable offence and another for the purpose of electronic reporting.
The provision imposes only a procedural requirement. Under Section 173(1)(ii), the electronically communicated information must be signed within three days.
A plain reading of Section 173, therefore, suggests that the provision adopts a broad framework for the electronic reporting of cognizable offences. The only restriction imposed by the provision is procedural and not substantive.
The Portal Problem – When Technology Creates Restrictions
At present, the e-FIR facility is available only in eight States and Union Territories—Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand—under the NCRB’s Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) project, as noted by the 22nd Law Commission of India in its 282nd Report (2023). However, even within these eight States and Union Territories, the offences that can be electronically reported are far narrower than what Section 173 of the BNSS appears to permit.
In most of these States, e-FIRs can be filed only for motor vehicle theft or property theft where the offender is unknown. Offences such as cheating, cyber fraud, criminal breach of trust and several other cognizable offences remain outside the framework. The State-wise restrictions make this inconsistency clearer:
- Delhi allows e-FIR registration only for property theft and motor vehicle theft where the offender is unknown.
- Madhya Pradesh permits e-FIR registration for vehicle theft up to ₹15 lakh and general theft (including cash, jewellery, mobile phones and electronic equipment) up to ₹1 lakh.
- Gujarat permits e-FIR registration for mobile theft and vehicle theft.
- Odisha permits e-FIR registration only for motor vehicle theft subject to specified conditions, including that the accused must be unknown and the vehicle must not have been recovered or linked to any other offence.
- Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Karnataka restrict e-FIR registration to cases of motor vehicle theft where the accused is unknown.
The variation in these restrictions is quite striking. A citizen may be able to file an e-FIR for identical facts in one State but not in another. None of these restrictions are found in Section 173 of the BNSS, which draws no distinction between theft and other cognizable offences and prescribes no monetary thresholds. These limitations arise from the manner in which the CCTNS project and State-level e-FIR portals have been implemented.
Cybercrime and the Irony of Exclusion
The premise behind e-FIR was speed: certain offences cannot wait for a victim to physically reach a police station. Cybercrime is the clearest example — fraudulent transactions are often still in progress while the victim is travelling to file a report, and a delay of even a few hours can be the difference between recovering stolen funds and losing them for good..
According to the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, 28.15 lakh cybercrime complaints were reported in 2025. However, only 55,484 formal FIRs were registered. This means that less than 2% of cybercrime complaints were converted into formal FIRs. At the same time, Government data shows that timely intervention in cyber fraud cases has helped save more than ₹8,000 crore under the Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System. These figures highlight two important realities. First, cybercrime requires immediate reporting and quick police action. Second, timely reporting mechanisms can make a significant difference in preventing financial loss. Ironically, the offences that would benefit the most from immediate electronic reporting are among those presently excluded from the e-FIR framework.
The e-FIR mechanism could also improve access to justice for senior citizens, persons with mobility constraints, and individuals living in rural or remote areas who may find it difficult to physically visit a police station. In many situations, reporting a crime quickly can help preserve evidence and initiate the investigation process at an earlier stage. Victims who lose valuable time because of procedural hurdles could similarly benefit from electronic reporting.
The Future of e-FIR: The Way Forward
The future of e-FIR should be a carefully designed expansion based on the nature of the offence. The present framework is too restrictive. At the same time, universal e-FIR for all offences is not practically feasible. Certain offences may require immediate physical police intervention and cannot be effectively dealt with through an entirely electronic reporting mechanism.
The crimes that require immediate reporting and could greatly benefit from electronic reporting should gradually be integrated into the e-FIR framework. These may include: Cyber financial fraud, Cheating in online scams, Identity theft, Document theft, and Other similar non-violent and time-sensitive offences.
Another recommendation is the introduction of uniform national guidelines. At present, Delhi has one limit, Madhya Pradesh has another, and Uttar Pradesh follows a different approach altogether. There is no uniformity in the categories of offences that can be electronically reported. The Ministry of Home Affairs or the NCRB should consider issuing uniform guidelines prescribing the minimum categories of offences that every State portal must support. States may continue to expand this list depending upon their administrative and technological capabilities.
India already has the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, the 1930 Helpline, the Zero FIR system, and the CCTNS infrastructure. India already has several digital mechanisms for reporting and responding to crime. Better integration of these systems with the e-FIR framework could significantly improve electronic crime reporting.
Conclusion
The Indian Government introduced the concept of e-FIR through Section 173 of the BNSS. It marked an important step towards a more accessible and technology-driven criminal justice system. The provision adopts broad and offence-neutral language for the electronic reporting of cognizable offences. However, the present framework continues to have certain limitations, particularly its geographical reach, as it is currently available only in eight States and Union Territories, and the limited categories of offences that can be electronically reported.
The challenge today is not whether e-FIR should exist, but how it should evolve. Taking the example of cybercrime, which is one of the fastest-growing categories of crime in India, e-FIR has the potential to significantly improve access to justice for victims through timely and accessible reporting mechanisms. A gradual and well-planned expansion of the framework, supported by uniform guidelines, can help realise the true objective of Section 173. As the nature of crime continues to change, India’s e-FIR framework must evolve with it.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is e-FIR under the BNSS?
Electronic reporting of a cognizable offence under Section 173 of the BNSS, in place of an in-person report at a police station. The informant must sign the complaint within three days. - Does Section 173 restrict e-FIR to specific offences?
No. The provision says “every information” and draws no offence-wise classification or monetary threshold. - In how many states is e-FIR currently available?
Only eight states and Union Territories, per the MHA’s reply to Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 2717 (6 February 2024): Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. - What offences can actually be reported through e-FIR in practice?
Mostly motor vehicle theft and property theft with an unknown offender, often capped by value. Cheating, cyber fraud, and criminal breach of trust remain excluded despite being cognizable. - Why does this gap exist if the law itself is broad?
The restrictions come from how state portals and the CCTNS project were built, not from the statute itself. - Why does this gap matter most for cybercrime victims?
Cybercrime needs the fastest reporting, yet is largely excluded — in 2025, fewer than 2% of 28.15 lakh cybercrime complaints became formal FIRs.
REFERENCES
- The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 46 of 2023)
- Law Commission of India, Report No. 282 (2023)
https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report282.pdf - Delhi Police – e-FIR Portal
https://efir.delhipolice.gov.in/ - Madhya Pradesh Police – Citizen Portal
https://citizen.mppolice.gov.in/ - Gujarat Police – Citizen Portal
https://gujhome.gujarat.gov.in/ - Odisha Police – Citizen Services Portal
https://citizenportal-op.gov.in/ - Rajasthan Police – Citizen Services Portal
https://police.rajasthan.gov.in/ - Uttar Pradesh Police – Citizen Services Portal
https://uppolice.gov.in/ - Uttarakhand Police – Official Portal
https://uttarakhandpolice.uk.gov.in/ - National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, Government of India
https://cybercrime.gov.in/ - Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2107328
