Recently, the provisions on “record sealing” in the revised draft of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law have been like a boulder dropped into the pond of public opinion, stirring up far more widespread attention and heated debate than other legal clauses. Among them, Article 136, which establishes the system for sealing records of public security violations, has triggered extensive societal discussion. The controversy reflects not just differing interpretations of a single legal provision but, more profoundly, reveals the complex public sentiment within the process of legal system development.

As this issue directly relates to my professional work, I have previously written two articles on it. The second one was even deleted from WeChat Official Accounts due to its overly sharp content. Now, with a calmer mind, let’s delve into this issue properly.

Universal Sealing: The “Institutional Buffer” the Law Provides for Minor Offenders

The record sealing system established by this revision covers all public security violations, not specific groups or behaviors. Legally, the objects of sealing include records left after all violations of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law, such as assault, theft, fraud, and picking quarrels and provoking trouble.

The legal basis for this system design is deeply rooted in the principle of proportionality in modern administrative law, which requires that the exercise of public power must be commensurate with the intended purpose, and the severity of measures must not exceed what is necessary to achieve that purpose. Statistics show that from 2019 to 2023, public security organs nationwide handled approximately 40.35 million public security cases, over 90% of which involved minor offenses like warnings or small fines. Allowing mistakes resulting from momentary impulse or misjudgment to become a lifelong “stain” clearly exceeds the necessary limits of punishment.

I believe many would agree with this view: if an individual must bear the label of an offender for life due to a single public security violation, “it is difficult for that person to receive fair treatment.” Therefore, the essence of the sealing system is to provide an “institutional buffer” for minor offenders who have accepted punishment and genuinely reformed, preventing “one mistake, lifelong restrictions” and aiding their reintegration into society.

Sealing Does Not Equal Destruction

The Essence is Information Management, Not Record Erasure

The biggest public misunderstanding is equating “sealing” with “destruction” or “wiping the slate clean.” Regulations like the Measures for the Implementation of Sealing Criminal Records of Minors have long provided clear explanations: sealing does not mean deletion; records remain fully preserved within the internal databases of the public security system. Its core purpose is the management and control of information access, aiming to prevent individuals from facing ongoing discrimination in subsequent job searches or education due to a minor, already-punished transgression.

Strictly Limiting Inquiry Authority to Fortify the Security Line

The system fortifies the line for public security, establishing the baseline that “sealing is the rule, inquiry is the exception.” According to the new provisions, inquiries can be made according to law under the following two circumstances:

1. When relevant state organs require it for case handling purposes;
2. When relevant units conduct inquiries based on state regulations.

Here, “state regulations” is strictly defined as laws enacted by the National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee and administrative regulations enacted by the State Council. This means inquiry authority is strictly confined within the legal framework, preventing the generalization and localization of inquiry bases at the source. Units conducting inquiries according to law are also bound by strict confidentiality obligations.

Therefore, for specific positions involving national security and public interests, such as civil servants, teachers, and military recruitment, the political review by recruiting units can still proceed based on relevant laws and regulations. The sealing system does not create loopholes for scrutiny in these critical areas. For example, specific legal bases include:

• Measures for the Examination of Candidates for Civil Service Recruitment, Article 9: A candidate shall not be determined as a proposed recruit if they fall under any of the following circumstances: (1) falling under any circumstance listed in Article 26 of the Civil Servant Law; (2) committing any act listed in Article 59 of the Civil Servant Law; …
• Civil Servant Law, Article 59: Civil servants shall observe discipline and law, and shall not commit the following acts: … (13) participating in prostitution, gambling, drug abuse, superstitious activities, or other such activities…

One Core Purpose of the Revision is to Strengthen Supervision of Public Power

The revision of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law involves adding 25 articles and amending over 60 places, with substantial content focused on regulating and safeguarding law enforcement procedures. Examining the record sealing system within the broader context of this revision allows for a clearer understanding of its legislative intent.

This revision places significant emphasis on further regulating and safeguarding law enforcement and improving relevant penalty procedures. For instance, it specifies that the “law enforcement credentials” presented by police officers according to this law refer to the “People’s Police Certificate”; it adds provisions requiring full simultaneous audio-video recording for on-the-spot seizures; and it further strictly regulates the circumstances and conditions for applying “single-officer enforcement.”

These revisions, together with the record sealing system, form an organic whole. Their essence is integrating the protection of citizens’ rights and the constraint of law enforcement power into a unified framework. They collectively emphasize the principle that “no power shall be exercised without legal authorization,” aiming to fully incorporate law enforcement actions into the track of rule of law. The record sealing system, precisely by strictly limiting inquiry authority, aims to completely block the previously existing “gray area of inquiries,” thereby compelling standardization of law enforcement and ensuring public power operates under sunlight.

Conclusion

The system for sealing records of public security violations reflects the refined evolution of China’s rule of law civilization. It is neither a compromise nor indulgence. Rather, under the legal philosophy combining punishment with education, it seeks a better balance between protecting individual rights and safeguarding the public interest.

Genuine public security never relies on mutual scrutiny among individuals but on a set of open, transparent, and strictly enforced legal and regulatory systems. The record sealing system, by bringing the previously gray-area “inquiries based on personal connections” onto the track of “inquiries based on law,” lays the foundation for building a more inclusive and resilient society while regulating law enforcement power and protecting citizens’ rights.