context: In recent years, with growing emphasis on privacy protection, access to non-criminal administrative violation records has tightened and is generally restricted to state organs for case handling or civil service background checks. However, a large segment of online opinion opposes this change, arguing that it may conceal risks in society, especially insisting that drug-use records should not be sealed. On social media, the issue has even been distorted into conspiracy theories, with claims that the policy is meant to shield the misconduct of children from powerful families. In response, state media have begun coordinated public communication to guide opinion and explain why sealing such records is considered necessary under the law.
The newly revised Public Security Administration Punishment Law, effective from 1 January 2026, specifies
- records of public security violations shall be sealed and may not be provided to or disclosed to any unit or individua
- exceptions apply only where state organs require access for case handling or where relevant units conduct inquiries under national regulations
- entities lawfully accessing sealed records must ensure confidentiality
The introduction of the public security offense record sealing system has triggered widespread public debate.
According to Caixin
- scholars explain that 'sealing' operates by restricting access, inquiry, disclosure and use of violation records, thereby indirectly achieving the effect of eliminating prior offenses
- this mechanism helps mitigate the long-term negative social impact of minor administrative violations
Zhang Yijian 张义健 National People’s Congress Standing Committee Legislative Affairs Commission Criminal Law Office director, explained its legislative rationale and social impact
- public security violation records often adversely affect offenders and even their relatives in employment, enlistment and daily life
- many employers improperly require 'no violation/no crime records' as hiring prerequisites, often without legal basis
- such practices lead to excessive and disproportionate penalties for minors and in some cases improper spillover to family members
- according to data released by the National Bureau of Statistics, from 2019–23, about 8 million public security cases were handled annually, meaning the affected population is large and socially significant
- long-term stigmatisation is not conducive to social stability and long-term governance
Zhang proposed three regulatory safeguards
- absolute prohibition on external disclosure
- records must not be provided or disclosed to any unit or individual outside the legally permitted scope.
- ensuring the effectiveness of sealing
- in recent years, public security authorities have
- stopped issuing certificates of administrative violation records
- issued only criminal record certificates in accordance with regulations
- restricted administrative violation records to internal police systems within provinces, not fully networked nationwide
- however, some employers still improperly demand proof of 'no violation records', even for positions with no job-related necessity
- the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and related authorities are urged to
- strengthen guidance to employers
- correct one-size-fits-all requirements
- prevent the abusive expansion of background checks.
- in recent years, public security authorities have
- strict regulation of lawful inquiries
- any lawful inquiry must be based on case-handling necessity and supported by explicit legal or administrative regulatory authority
Regarding to the drug related violation record, which attracts most attention. Zhao Hong 赵宏 Peking University Law School researcher, and Bao Han 包涵 People’s Public Security University of China associate professor, stated in interviews with China Central Television
- the sealing system applies only to administrative violations that do not reach the threshold of criminal punishment
- drug smuggling and trafficking are criminal offenses and are governed by the criminal record management system, not subject to sealing
- record sealing does not mean 'risk invisibility'
- concerns about drug users entering high-risk professions are already addressed through multiple existing legal and regulatory barriers
- the sealing system will not weaken occupational access supervision