People's lJnion forCivil Liberties v. tJnion of lndia

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to pass an interim direction thereby directing the Respondent No.s and Task Force west zone not to harass the Petitioner by way of calling to any Police Station unless a crime is registered against the Petitioner' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ARBAZ KHAN' REPRESENTING SRI MOHAMMED ABDUL WAHAB Counsel for the Respondents: SRt M. SRINIVAS, AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 25417 OF 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: "...to grant an Order, Direction or Wit, more so in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, dectaring the action of the * Respondent in opening the rowdy sheet and maintaining the same against the petitioner, as itlegat, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Afticles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direction may be given to the respondenls fo c/ose the Rowdy Sheet aN pass such other order or orders.. ."

2. Heard Mr. Arbaz Khan, learned counsel, representing Mr. Mohammed Abdul Wahab, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the resPondents.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 5 has opened and is continuing a rowdy-sheet against the petitioner without there being any criminal case presentlY Perding against him. lt is further submitted that there is no material to establish that the petitioner is a habitual offender or that he has been indulging in aclivities prejudicial to public peace and tranquility. Nonetheless, the continued surveillance by the police authorities amounts to an unwarranted 2 ^mL W.l'. No.2.i417 of 2017 / interference with the petitioner's right to personal liberty and privacy, protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of lndia. Accordingly, it is prayed that the rowdy-sheet maintained against the petitioner be quashed.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, submits that respondent No. 5 has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that nine criminal cases were registered against the petitioner during the period from 1998 to 2016. However, it is candidly admitted that as on the date of filing of the writ petition in 2017, no criminal case was pending. Nonetheless, the police authorities contend that, in the interest of public order. the rowdy-sheet has been continued against the petitioner.

5. I have perused the material available on record

6. The opening and maintenance of a rowdy-sheet by the police authorities is governed by Standing Order 601-A of the Potice Manual. The said Standing Order mandates that a rowdy-sheet may be opened against persons who have been involved in more than two crimes and who habitually attempt, commit, or abet the commission of offences involving breach of peace, disturbance of public tranquility, or threat to public order. The underlying principle is that the preventive surveillance I -i" J ,NT&/ IV.P. N0.25417 ol20t 7 must be justified on the basis of cogent material showing habituality or propensity towards unlawful activity.

7. ln the present case, it is an admitted fact that no criminal case is pending against the petitioner since 2017. The respondents, apart from a general assertion that the rowdy-sheet is continued "to curtail unlawful activities of the petitioner," have not placed any legally acceptable material on record to demonstrate that the petitioner is presently indulging in, or is likely to indulge in, any activity prejudicial to public peace and order. Mere reliance on past cases, the last of which was registered in 2016, without any subsequent material indicating habituality or apprehension of recurrence, is insufficient to justify the continuation of surveillance.

8. lt is well settled that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to privacy and dignity, which cannot be curtailed except in accordance with procedure established by law. ln Kharak Singh v Stale of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295; People's lJnion forCivil Liberties v. tJnion of lndia, (1997) 1 SCC 301). Further, in Puttagunta Pasi v Commissioner of Police, 1998 (1) ALD (Crl.) 11S (AP), it was held that maintenance of rowdy-sheets without sufficient justification amounts to arbitrary interference with individual I t \ t liberty. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Malak Singh v. Sfafe of Puniab & 4 NTR,/ IV-P. No. ?511 7 of 20t 7 Haryana, (1981) I SCC 420, cautioned that surveillance registers must not be continued in the absence of real and substantive grounds, as they directly affect a citizen's reputation and liberty.

9. ln the absence of any specific material showing the petitioner's present or potential involvement in activities affecting public peace or tranquility, the continued maintenance of the rowdy-sheet against him is found to be arbitrary, without legal justification, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the rowdy-sheet maintained against the petitioner is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 5 and the concerned police authorities, are directed to take immediate consequential steps in compliance with this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications_, if any, shall stand closed. That the Rule Nisi has been made absolute as stated above. WiINESS thE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTTCE SNI APANES.i KUMAR SINGH, ON this- Monday, the Twenty Seventh Day of october, Two ThousrnJ l-tve. "nJ'rrrJnty SD/. M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR e. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One fair copy to the HON,BLE SRt JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJT (For His Lordship's Kind perusal) I3:,Y:RLTSretary, union of tndia, Minisrry of Law, Jusrice and company 3 The secretarv. Terangana Advocates Association Library, High court 4 The Principal Secretary,. Home Department, State of Telangana, T.S. Buildings, Hydi:rabad Secretariat, Hyderabad, telangana. To I

1. 11 L R Copies. , I

5. The commissioner of Police, Hyderabad city, commissioner office, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, T.S.

6. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Zone, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, T.S.

7. The Assistant commissioner of Police, Asifnagar Division, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad, T.S.

8. The Station House Officer, Humayunagar P S., Mehdipatnam' Hyderabad, T'S 9. One CC to SRI MOHAMMED ABDUL WAHAB, Advocate [OPUC] .l0.Two ccs to GP for Home, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. IOUI

11.Two CD Copies MP \ \ ) HIGH COURT DATED:2711012025 e 4ai (u\' t// ,1 .,() (J ,( i 5 1 In 1t ).' * s * ORDER WP.No.25417 ot 2017 I t ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS u eTlalat