Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. Opening of Rowdy Sheet and thereon keeping close surveillance on the person would certainly infringe upon right to life, liberty and privacy of the individual concerned. Right to life, liberty and privacy flows out of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to life and liberty are sacrosanct to any person. A person is entitled to lead his life with dignity and self respect and does not want an outsider to intrude in his private affairs and to probe into his movements. Thus, there are two competing interests on preventive measures. On the one side is right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is sacrosanct and on the other side is the primacy of enforcement of law and order, maintenance of peace and tranquility, which is the primary PNR,J responsibility of the State through its police force. Compelling public interest may require intrusion into privacy of a person.

11. Having regard to the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, when a rowdy sheet is opened, it is the bounden duty of the police to take due care and caution and resort to opening of rowdy sheet can be only in extraordinary circumstances where such recourse is imminent to enforce peace and tranquility in the locality and to prevent happening of untoward incident. When a citizen comes to the High Court alleging infringement of his right to life, liberty and privacy by opening a rowdy sheet, the Court can look into whether the decision of the police to have a surveillance on the petitioner is justified and supported by the material on record or it was initiated only to harass and humiliate the individual. It is to be noted that mere involvement in a crime may not per se require surveillance on that person.

12. In Mohammed Quadeer and others Vs. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and others2, learned single Judge of this Court observed as under:

"31. Opening of a rowdy sheet against a citizen is undoubtedly fraught with serious consequences. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees right to life with dignity and the right to live, as a dignified man, carries with it the right to reputation. Right to reputation is an integral part of right to life guaranteed by Article 21, and such a right cannot be deprived except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such laws which authorise the Police to open rowdy sheets and exercise surveillance are required to be very strictly construed. Opening of the rowdy sheets and retention thereof except in accordance with law would amount to infringement of fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is true that the State is duty bound at all levels to protect the persons and property from the criminals and criminal activity. Prevention of organised crime is an obligation on the part of the State.

13. Learned single Judge of this Court in Sunkara Satyanarayana Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department and others3, held as under:

"23. Surveillance by the police makes very serious inroads into the life of a person. It even grossly violates the right of persons to privacy. Obtrusive surveillance does not leave a citizen alone. With the subtle methods of telephone tapping, telescope watching, remote controlled audio and video recording gadgets, a citizen subjected to surveillance can never have mental peace and thus his life and liberty at every movement would be restricted. A person with lot of restrictions cannot be expected to lead a dignified life and exercise his right to liberty and other freedoms. A citizen's life would become miserable. Such a situation is worse than animal existence, For these reasons can it be said that there is a 'right' against surveillance? ..... ....