- In a critical judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the opening of rowdy sheets to brand persons as "rowdies", collection and show of their photographs,, domiciliary visits and summoning to police station according to the existing Police Standing Orders amount to a "direct infringement of the right to privacy".
- The Court held that the Police Standing Orders do not qualify as "law" within the interpretation of Article 21 and without the sanction of law, the police cannot collect the personal information of people and conduct home visits.
- The bench permitted a batch of writ petitions filed by several persons who questioned the opening and continuation of rowdy sheets against them by the police.
- The Court acknowledged the petitioners' contention that the Police Standing Orders are mere departmental guidelines without any statutory backing and hence cannot be called "law".
- Taking note that privacy has been declared to be a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution by the 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the KS Puttaswamy case, and that the said right can be confined only in accordance with "law", the Court directed the closing of all rowdy sheets.
- In conclusion, the Court observed :
- 1. In accordance with the pronouncements made in the Supreme Court in the K.S. Puttaswamy case and as Police Standing Orders are not law and do not meet the prescribed standards, the intrusive surveillance, display of photographs, summoning to the station etc will amount to breach of the Fundamental Right of Privacy.
- 2. All the rowdy sheets opened in this batch of writ petitions were to be closed immediately. In addition, the police cannot open or continue a rowdy sheet or collect data pertaining to a person without the sanction of law. Doing so to prevent crimes can only be in accordance with a law which crosses the thresholds mentioned in the Constitution of India and the various judgements including the K.S. Puttaswamy case.
- The court reiterated that the Police Standing Order is only a manual that guides the police officers and does not have any statutory force apart from authoritative case law.
- Simultaneously, the court recognizes the compelling state interest in keeping a check on habitual offenders to prevent crime. It suggests that the state should frame rules or enact laws on these issues as surveillance cannot be done without sanction of law.
- The Court suggested that the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding taking security from habitual offenders for keeping peace and good behaviour can be invoked.
"Loved reading this piece by Mahi Manchanda ?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
