Karnataka High Court
Kazia Mohammed Muzzammill vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001CRILJ412
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur
ORDER
1. The petitioner is resident of Bhatkal Town in Uttara Kannada District. At the material time he was a practising advocate. He has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the prayer to direct the respondents to produce before this Court the 'Goonda List' or 'Rowdy Sheet' maintained in the Bhatkal Police Station and on perusal thereof, if the name of the petitioner is found therein, then the same should be quashed as being baseless and arbitrary.
2. The Superintendent of Police, who is the sole respondent herein, has filed his Statement of Objections. According to him, keeping in view the antecedents and past activities of the petitioner, his name was entered in Form No. 100 being the Communal Goonda Sheet on 8-1-1993, under Order No. 9/93 dt. 2-1-1993 of the then Superintendent of Police, Uttaraka Kannada. The learned Advocate General, who is appearing for the respondent, has also produced original records to substantiate the appropriateness of making of such an entry.
3. In the Statement of Objections it has been stated that the petitioner was an active member of a Muslim Organisation called "Majlis-Isa-O-Tanzim". He was its General Secretary sometime in 1993. It is alleged that he was in the habit of harbouring criminals who are involved in criminal activities like murder and other serious offences during the 1993 Communal Riot.
4. According to the respondent, the petitioner used to instigate the accused persons not to attend the Courts. On the basis of the materials gathered by the respondent, it is suggested that petitioner's provocative communal speeches contributed in aggravating communal disturbance in Bhatkal during the year 1993. As such, as stated above, his name was entered in Form No. 100 i.e. Communal Goonda Sheet. In paragraph 4 of the Statement of Objections, it has further been alleged that:-
Thereafter, Dossier Form No. 296 (iii) was also opened in the name of the petitioner on 18-5-1995. The petitioner was practising in Bhatkal during the said time. He was also President of Bar Association, Bhatkal. He used to provoke Muslim youngsters to create disturbance. He used to hold secret meetings with his own community people to create disturbance in Bhatkal Town. As a result, a serious communal disturbance took place in Bhatkal Town in 1993. 19 people were killed and many injured in a group clash. He was responsible to instigate the accused not to attend the Court.
5. The State Intelligence Manual, which appears to have been prepared long back by the erstwhile State Special Branch and is more in the nature of an administrative document, deals with communal goondas. Rules 65 and 66 of this Manual are relevant for the present purposes, which read thus :-
R1. 65. An up to date list of communal goondas, category wise should be maintained at the Police Stations, Circle Office, SDPO and District levels. A close watch should be maintained over these persons as and when it is felt that some tension is mounting. The list should be thoroughly reviewed every year.
R1. 66. A communal goonda is defined as "A person who (a) either by himself or as a member or a leader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of an act leading to hatredness between two communities, directly or indirectly, or (b) causes or calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among a section or sections of persons belonging to different communities thereof, to a grave or widespread danger to life or public health and safety.
6. Similarly, Rule 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual empowers the police officers to maintain "Register of Rowdies" in every Police Station in Form No. 100 which has to be treated as confidential record. A rowdy has been defined as a goonda and includes a hooligan, rough, vagabond or any person who is dangerous to the Public peace and tranquillity.
7. Sub-rules (5) and (13) of Rule 1059 are material for the present purpose which read thus.-
(5) Prior Orders of the Superintendent of Police or the Sub-Divisional Police Officer should be obtained for entering the name of every rowdy in the Register of Rowdies.
(13) No name should be struck off from Part 'A' or Part 'B' of the Rowdy Register without the order in writing of the Superintendent of Police. In such case, the Inspector should send their recommendations to Superintendent of Police through the Sub-Divisional Police Officers.
8. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 1059 specifically provides that before entering the name of any person in the Register of Rowdies, prior orders of the Superintendent of Police or Sub-Divisional Police Officer should be obtained. Similarly, Sub-rule (13) of Rule 1059 makes it specific that no name so entered should be struck off from Part 'A' or Part 'B' of the Rowdy Register without the order in writing of the Superintendent of Police.
9. There is no serious dispute about the fact that the Register of Communal Goondas or the Register of Rowdies as referred to above are confidential documents meant for the use only of the Police Administration to maintain surveillance or to keep watch over the activities of a person found to have been involved in suspicious activities and who may endanger the communal harmony or law and order in the society. Mere maintenance of such registers do not and cannot in any way interfere with any personal right having civil consequences of a person whose name appeared in such registers.
10. In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., , it has been held that by the keeping of a close watch over the movements of the suspected person (whose name is entered in "history sheets") by the police does not offend any of the Fundamental Rights of such persons.
11. The above aspect of the matter has been elaborately considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Malak Singh v. State of Punjab in the context of maintaining Surveillance Register under Chapter 23 of the Punjab Police Rules. Their Lordship have upheld Rule 23.7 by holding that "Rule 23.7, which prescribes the mode of surveillance, permits the close watch over the movements of a person under surveillance but without any illegal interference. Permissible surveillance is only to the extent of close watch over the movements of a person under surveillance and no more. So long as surveillance is for the purpose of preventing crime and is confined to the limits prescribed by Rule 23.7 we do not think a person whose name is included in the surveillance register can have a genuine cause for complaint.
12. In para 8 of the judgment, it has further been held that:-
The entry in the surveillance register is to be made on the basis of the material provided by the history sheet whose contents, by their very nature have to be confidential. It would be contrary to the public interest to reveal the information in the history sheet, particularly the source of information. Revelation of the source of information may put the informant in jeopardy. The observance of the principle of natural justice, apart from not serving the ends of justice may thus lead to undesirable results. We accordingly hold that the rule audi alteram partem is not attracted.
13. In Malak Singh's case (supra), the Supreme Court has registered a mark of caution by observing that empowerment of police to enter names in the surveillance register does not give them a blanket power without basis for the same. According to their Lordships, as and when making of such entries is questioned before the Court, then without disturbing the confidentiality of the document and the grounds which had led to making of such entries, the Court may for its own satisfaction call for the records and find out for itself as to whether there are grounds which can suggest justifiability of making of such entries.
14. In the present case, pursuant to our directions, the learned Advocate General, has produced original documents and the Registers with English translation of narrations and report which are in Kannada.
15. After going through the relevant records, we feel satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for the Superintendent of Police to permit the entry of the name of the petitioner in the Register of Communal Goonda as well as the Register of Rowdies.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for declaring the above entries as being without basis or arbitrary cannot be acceded to. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.