Chandigarh, April 2 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court on Wednesday asked the petitioners in a public interest litigation (PIL) to apprise the court whether providing free copies of daily diary report (DDR) and other such documents is a sovereign function of the state. The high court bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Sanjiv Berry was dealing with a PIL seeking quashing of the notification/policy whereby the Punjab Police had started imposing Rs.80 charge for downloading first information reports (FIRs) from the Saanjh portal and increase in the charges for other such facilities. The government withdrew the notification regarding the FIR after political backlash. However, as per the petitioner counsels, the government is still charging Rs Rs.100 for getting copy of a missing person report, Rs.100 for getting a copy of lost mobile phone, Rs.150 for obtaining a copy of an untraced report in road accident cases, Rs.150 for untraced report copies in theft cases, and Rs.80 for obtaining a copy of the action taken report. Such charges, they argued, impose an additional financial burden on the common public. They informed that earlier also some amount was being charged for these services and it came to light after recent notification about hike in the charges of these services. The petitioners, Abhishek Malhotra and Vasu Ranjan, had termed the move illegal, ultra vires to the Section 173(2) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. "The policy monetises a fundamental and statutory right to access justice, creates barriers for economically weaker sections, and is ultra-vires the Central statute, State Police Rules, and Supreme Court directions. It also constitutes a human rights violation under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993," the PIL says, adding that police cannot charge extra for a digital access to a public document. During the hearing, the court had questioned since when these charges were being levied. Also, it asked petitioners to clarify whether the government is duty bound to supply free copies of these documents. The petitioners maintained that none of these documents are available on websites and sought time to address arguments on the issues raised by court on the adjourned date of April 23....