Publishing names/IDs of accused persons other than proclaimed offenders on police station flyboards violates Privacy: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently held that publication of the names/photographs of alleged criminals/ accused persons other than proclaimed offenders and fugitives from law, on notice boards of police stations is a violation of the right to privacy and human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution (Jeeshan @ Jaanu And Another v. State)..A Division Bench of Justices Vivek Agarwal and Pankaj Naqvi, therefore, ordered that the names/identities of "top 10 criminals" along with their criminal antecedents be removed from the flysheet boards of police stations. .The Court clarified that only the names of proclaimed offenders and fugitives from the law can be published on the notice boards of police stations in adherence with the procedure established by law. ."The DGP, UP is directed to forthwith remove the names/identities of Top-10 criminals along with their criminal antecedents from the flysheet board from all the police stations. He is also directed to ensure that a circular in the light of this judgment is sent to all the police heads of the districts so as to ensure strict compliance," the Court ordered..The circular shall also provide that any violation of this judgment would not only invite disciplinary action but also criminal prosecution under appropriate provisions, including payment of compensation from the erring official, the Court added. .The benefit of this judgment will not be available to proclaimed offenders and fugitives in law, the Court made it clear. .The Court was hearing three petitions alleging a violation of the right to privacy on account of a list of "top-10 criminals" being displayed in three different police stations of UP. .The petitioners had contended that the act of the respondent authorities to publish/display/disclose of their names infringed upon the right to privacy and the right to live with dignity. It was submitted that the right to privacy is recognized as a sacred fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and that the publication of petitioners' names as well as their criminal history is a clear violation of the same. .A circular/policy issued by UP government on July 6, 2020 was also assailed on the ground that it violates Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. .Paragraph 2 of the policy provides for preparation of a list of "top 10 criminals" at each police station and district so as to help the police in keeping a tab on active, hardened and functional criminals..On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General submitted that accused have no right to privacy as the society needs to be aware of the criminals and their antecedents. Dissemination of information as to the antecedents of criminals does not amount to any discrimination, the State contended. .Both the judges (Justice Agarwal and Justice Naqvi) gave their separate, but concurring, opinions in the matter..The Court framed the following three issue for consideration. .(i) Whether policy/circular is ultra vires of the provisions contained in Constitution of India especially Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, Police Act, 1861 or UP Police Regulations?(ii) Whether the policy/circular grants right to the police authorities to publish names of so-called criminals/accused persons on the flysheet board of the concerned police station?(iii) Whether the publication of names of such accused persons violates the right to privacy and dignity?.On the first question, the Court ruled that the policy per se does not suffer from vice of ultra vires, because the aim and object of the policy is to keep the police updated of the activities of the criminals with a view to keep a better control on law and order situation.."I have no hesitation to hold that policy/ circular in its content or language does not suffer from lack of competence. When tested within the four corners of the law laid down in the case of Indian Express Newspapers, policy can not be said to be the arbitrary, illegal or ultra vires of either the Constitution or the Police Act or the Police Regulations," the Court held..It, therefore, upheld the policy/circular of July 6. .On the question of the scope of the policy itself, the Court held that neither the policy/circular nor any of the provisions contained in the police regulations, the Police Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), authorizes the police authorities to publish the names of so-called criminals/accused persons on the flysheet board of the concerned police station, unless a proclamation is obtained against them following the procedure established by law..On the third question, the Court held that human dignity is infringed when the names of the accused persons are displayed on the flysheet board of the police station concerned or anywhere else without there being any proclamation issued against them under Section 82, CrPC. Section 82 of the CrPC provides for the conditions in which a proclamation can be issued by any court for an absconding person. .".... it is apparent that neither socially nor politically it is desirable to curtail human dignity, which is infringed when names of accused persons are displayed on the flysheet board of the police station concerned or anywhere else without there being any proclamation issued against them under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Thus, this practice of putting the names on the flysheet board is derogatory to the concept of human dignity and privacy," read the lead opinion authored by Justice Agarwal. .Justice Naqvi, in his concurring opinion stated,"... the circular of DG (Police) dated 6.7.2020 cannot be faulted, but the action of its officers in disclosing the identity of petitioners in police stations in public gaze is absolutely unwarranted and uncalled for as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.".[Read Orders]