Rowdy sheets under Police Standing Orders, home visits, collecting personal info infringe privacy: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday held that Standing Orders of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual for opening and continuation of rowdy sheets, and surveillance on their basis was unconstitutional and thus, void [Udathu Suresh v State of Andhra Pradesh]..Justice DVSS Somayajulu held that the police could not open or continue a rowdy sheet or collect data pertaining to a person without the sanction of law.“It is reiterated that the police cannot (under the existing orders) indulge in night visits; domiciliary visits to the houses of a suspect or accused. They cannot take or demand the photographs, fingerprints etc., except under the procedure established by a ‘law’ and if the conditions laid down are satisfied. Accused or suspects cannot be summoned or called to the Police Station or anywhere else either during festivals / elections/ weekends etc. They cannot be made to wait at the Police Stations for any reason or seek permission to leave the local jurisdiction,” the single-judge held.Pertinently, the Court held that home/domiciliary visits, summoning to the station, collection of personal information would amount to violation of fundamental rights..While deciding an issue relating to the validity of opening and continuation of rowdy sheets against the petitioners, it was found that the police was ignoring settled law and opening rowdy sheets..In a nutshell- The petitioners had challenged the opening and continuation of rowdy sheets against them;- They stated that despite acquittals or quashing of FIRs, the sheets were continued and their pictures put up;- Home/domiciliary visits, summoning to the station, collection of personal information were violative of their fundamental rights, it was contended;- The court agreed that such acts were violation of the petitioners’ rights in light of the Puttaswamy judgment;- Thus, the police was told that under the existing Police Standing Orders, it could not carry out these activities..The petitioners in the case informed the court that they were being called to the police station during unearthly hours, made to wait for a day or two, and even after acquittals, their rowdy sheets were being continued.It was stated that their photographs were obtained and put up in police stations branding them as rowdies..On the other hand, the State argued that the Police had an active duty to prevent the commission of cognizable offences. Therefore, the process of rowdy sheeting could not be abruptly discontinued..The Court discussed the right to privacy established as an inherent, intrinsic that always exists and has been classified as a primordial natural right by the Supreme Court judgment in KS Puttaswamy v Union Of India. Police action will have to be tested against the touchstone of this judgment, the High Court underscored..The judge went on to note that Police Standing Orders did not have any statutory force, and would not supersede any regulation.Therefore, the State was told that the orders were mere administrative guidelines and did not pass the test in the Puttaswamy judgment..The Court cautioned that continuing the activities relating to intrusive surveillance would amount to wilful disobedience of Supreme Court’s order, and would thus open up officers to contempt proceedings.“The officers who are not party to these writs may also be is contempt of court if they still follow the AP Police Standing Orders,” the Court stated..Notwithstanding, Justice Somayajulu acknowledged that compelling State interest to prevent crime could not be lost sight of.In this regard, while it was stated that a law governing surveillance was the correct way to move forward, the Court made certain suggestions for the use of existing laws to gather necessary information which included provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) as well as the AP Habitual Offenders Act..Finally, all the rowdy sheets opened in the batch of writ petitions were directed to be closed immediately..Senior Advocates KS Murthy, O Manohar Reddy, Advocates Raja Reddy Koneti, VV Satish, G Ramgopal, PSP Suresh Kumar, AK Kishore Reddy, R Ramnjaneyulu, Thota Ramakoteswara Rao, G Rajkumar, PB Vijay Kumar, N Chandra Sekhar Reddy, N Siva Reddy, Peeta Raman, Ch Venkata Raman, BV Anjaneyulu, C Raghu, Harinath Reddy Soma, Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, C Subodh, Challa Gunaranjan, Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, Jada Sravan Kumar, Ch Bhanu Prasad, G Eswaraiah, Kolluri Arjun Chowdary, Nimmagadda Revathi, Harishkumar Rasineni, Posani Venkateswarulu, K Sreedhar Murthy, Majji Suri Babu, KM Krishna Reddy, Karumanchi Indraneel Babu and DSNV Prasad Babu appeared for the petitioner.Government pleader G Maheswar Reddy represented the State..[Read Judgment]