Section 4: Wilful Neglect of Duties by Public Servants

An atrocity law is only as strong as the police station that receives the complaint. A Dalit victim who is turned away, whose FIR is written without the atrocity sections, whose statement is never recorded, or whose case waits a year for a charge-sheet, suffers a second injury, this time at the hands of the State. Section 4 makes wilful neglect of duties under the Act a crime. The 2015 Amendment Act rewrote it, listing the duties in detail and adding two procedural safeguards: an administrative enquiry before a public servant is booked, and cognizance by the Special Court. This note explains each duty, the link with Rules 5 and 7, the procedure for prosecution after State of GNCT of Delhi v. Praveen Kumar, and the line between negligence and wilful neglect.

Figure 1: Section 4(2): the duties that follow a complaint

1. The Statutory Text

The 1989 text had only what is now sub-section (1), and referred to duties 'under this Act' alone. The 2016 version adds duties under the Rules, lists them in sub-section (2), and adds the proviso and sub-section (3).

The ingredients of Section 4(1)

• A public servant. The Act uses the meaning in the Penal Code, by Section 2(2). Police officers are the usual accused, but revenue officials, prosecutors, doctors who prepare medico-legal reports, and officers responsible for relief are also covered.
• Not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. As with Section 3, the offence applies only to officers outside the protected groups. Neglect by an officer who belongs to them may be dealt with departmentally.
• A duty under the Act or the Rules. The duty must arise from the Act or the 1995 Rules, including those listed in sub-section (2).
• Wilful neglect. The neglect must be deliberate (Part 6 below).
• Punishment. Imprisonment of not less than six months and up to one year. Section 4 is an offence under the Act but not an 'atrocity', since atrocity is defined by reference to Section 3.

2. The Duties in Section 4(2)

(a) Reading oral information back to the informant

Many victims are unlettered or unfamiliar with the language of the police record. The officer must read out the information reduced to writing before taking the informant's signature, so that what is recorded is what was said. Rule 5(1) of the 1995 Rules imposes the same duty.

(b) Registration of the FIR under the appropriate sections

• Registration is mandatory. Where the information discloses a cognizable offence, registration of the FIR is mandatory (Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., 2014). Section 18A(1)(a), added in 2018, makes clear that no preliminary enquiry is required before registering an FIR under this Act.
• Under the appropriate sections. The officer must register the case under the relevant provisions of the Act, not only under the general law. Omitting the atrocity sections to deny the victim the Act's protections, or to help the accused get bail, is precisely what clause (b) targets.
• Refusal to register. Under Rule 5(3), a victim whose information is not recorded may send it in writing to the Superintendent of Police, who must investigate personally or through an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent and order an entry.

(c) Supplying a copy of the FIR

A copy must be given to the informant forthwith, and under Rule 5(2) free of cost. Section 15A(9) separately entitles the victim to a copy of the FIR free of cost.

(d) Recording statements of victims and witnesses

The officer must record the statements of the victims and witnesses. Failure to record the victim's statement, or recording it selectively, often decides whether the caste element and the presence of public witnesses reach the charge-sheet.

(e) Investigation and charge-sheet within sixty days

• Investigating officer. Rule 7(1) requires investigation by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. In State of M.P. v. Babbu Rathore (2020), the Supreme Court held that investigation of an offence under the Act by an officer not appointed under Rule 7 is illegal and invalid, though the trial for penal offences can proceed.
• Sixty days. Rule 7(2), as substituted in 2016, requires the charge-sheet to be filed in the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court within sixty days, a period that includes investigation.
• Explaining delay. Rule 7(2A) requires the investigating officer to explain any delay in writing. The Madras High Court has held that the sixty-day period is a duty cast on the officer, not an outer limit whose breach entitles the accused to discharge (Rajarathinam v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026).

(f) Correct preparation, framing and translation of documents

Site plans, seizure memos, medical reports, statements and electronic records must be prepared correctly and translated faithfully. A mistranslated statement that drops the caste abuse, or a site plan that omits the public road, can defeat a true case.

(g) Other duties under the Act and the Rules

The residuary clause covers duties such as visiting the scene, arranging protection, informing the victim of hearings under Section 15A, and taking steps for relief and rehabilitation under the Rules.

3. The Administrative Enquiry: a Condition Precedent

Figure 2: Prosecuting a public servant under Section 4

The proviso to Section 4(2) says that charges against a public servant shall be booked on the recommendation of an administrative enquiry. The safeguard protects officers from retaliatory prosecutions for honest decisions, while sub-section (3) ensures that a court, not the department alone, decides whether to proceed.

• Followed since. The Uttarakhand High Court quashed an FIR under Section 4 ordered directly by a Sessions Judge against police officers without an administrative enquiry (Bhupendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2026). The Supreme Court is reported to have applied the same rule in September 2026 to quash proceedings against Tamil Nadu police officers.
• What the victim can do. Ask the Special Court, the Superintendent of Police or the State Government to order an administrative enquiry, and pursue Rule 5(3) and Section 18A remedies for the FIR itself.

4. Cognizance by the Special Court

Section 4(3) vests cognizance of dereliction of duty in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, which 'shall give direction for penal proceedings' against the public servant. The Special Court is the forum that sees the investigation's failures most clearly, since the charge-sheet and the evidence come before it. Read with Praveen Kumar, the sequence is: dereliction comes to light, an administrative enquiry examines it, the enquiry recommends charges, and the Special Court takes cognizance and directs penal proceedings.

5. Failure to Register, Dilution and Defective Investigation

• Failure to register an FIR. The clearest case under clause (b), especially where the information plainly discloses an atrocity. Section 4 punishes the officer; Rule 5(3), Section 18A and a Magistrate's order under the BNSS secure the FIR.
• Deliberate dilution of charges. Registering a caste assault as a 'quarrel between neighbours', leaving out the atrocity sections, or omitting a grave penal section such as attempt to murder can amount to neglect of the duty to register under the appropriate sections. But courts insist on proof that the dilution was wilful. In Md. Tanweer Alam v. State of Bihar (Patna High Court, 2025), an FIR against police officers over a delayed FIR, a missing penal section and unrecorded witnesses was quashed because nothing showed intentional, conscious and deliberate neglect.
• Defective investigation. Poor investigation does not automatically amount to wilful neglect. Its first remedy is further investigation or a direction by the court; Section 4 is reserved for deliberate failure.
• Pleading. A complaint that does not aver wilful neglect does not attract Section 4 (N. Appa Rao v. State of A.P., Andhra Pradesh High Court, 2022).

6. Negligence versus Wilful Neglect

Figure 3: Negligence or wilful neglect?

'Wilful' means intentional, conscious and deliberate, as the Supreme Court explained in State of Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas (2006). Negligence is failure to take the care a reasonable officer would take; wilful neglect is a choice not to do what the law requires. An officer who files the charge-sheet on the sixty-fifth day because forensic reports were pending, and explains the delay, is at most negligent. An officer who refuses to register the FIR after reading a complaint of caste abuse before a crowd, and tells the victim to 'settle it in the village', is wilfully neglecting his duty.

7. Section 4 and Related Provisions

• Section 3(2)(vii). A public servant who himself commits an offence under Section 3 faces a minimum of one year. Section 4 is about failing to act; Section 3(2)(vii) is about acting wrongly.
• Section 3(2)(vi). Causing disappearance of evidence, or giving false information, to screen the offender of an atrocity; an officer who destroys evidence may fall here as well.
• Rules 5 and 7. Rule 5 details the recording of information and the copy to the informant; Rule 7 fixes the rank of the investigating officer and the sixty-day limit. Both are 'rules made thereunder' whose wilful neglect is punishable.
• General law. BNS Section 199 (formerly Section 166A IPC) punishes a public servant who fails to record information about certain sexual offences, among other things; it can apply alongside Section 4.

8. Quick Revision and Memory Aids

• 'Read, Register, Receipt, Record, Report, Render, Rest'. The seven duties: (a) read back, (b) register properly, (c) copy as receipt, (d) record statements, (e) report in sixty days, (f) render documents correctly, (g) the rest.
• 'Six to twelve'. Six months to one year.
• 'Enquiry first'. No booking without an administrative enquiry (Praveen Kumar, 2024).
• 'Special Court directs'. Section 4(3).
• 'Wilful means chosen'. Intentional, conscious and deliberate (Mohd. Illiyas, 2006).

9. Frequently Asked Questions

Can a Special Court directly order an FIR against an SHO who refused to register a case?

Not without a prior administrative enquiry recommending it. After Praveen Kumar, the Special Court acts on the recommendation; it can, however, secure registration of the underlying FIR through other remedies.

Does Section 4 apply to a Scheduled Caste police officer?

No. Section 4(1) applies only to public servants not belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

Is a charge-sheet filed after sixty days invalid?

No. The sixty-day period is a duty on the investigating officer, whose delay must be explained in writing; it does not invalidate a later charge-sheet.

Is the investigation invalid if conducted by an Inspector?

For offences under the Act, yes, unless he was appointed in terms of Rule 7 (Babbu Rathore, 2020). The penal offences can still be tried.

Is neglect under Section 4 an atrocity?

No. It is an offence under the Act, but 'atrocity' in Section 2(1)(a) refers to offences punishable under Section 3.

10. Related Topics and Provisions

• Topic 10: Amendment History. Section 18A and preliminary enquiry.
• Topic 24: Section 3(2). Clauses (vi) and (vii).
• Topic 27: Sections 5 to 9. Section 9 and the conferment of police powers.
• Section 4; Section 15A; Section 18A; Rules 5 and 7; BNS s.199. The provisions discussed