Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice R. Nataraj partly allowed a petition by a rowdy-sheeter seeking a direction that police issue prior notice whenever his presence is required for enquiry or investigation and complaining of being orally summoned and questioned despite no immediate case basis. The Court directed that, so long as he is not involved in, or suspected of, any offence, the police shall not summon him orally merely because his name appears in the rowdy list. Pending any law prescribing a procedure, it directed him to furnish a mobile number to specified police stations so they may send an SMS or WhatsApp message asking him to visit; if he does not respond, officers may visit his house. The protection will cease if he becomes involved in any crime.

The petitioner sought a direction to officers of the Karnataka State Police Department to issue a notice whenever his presence was required for enquiry or investigation. He asserted that his name was recorded as a “rowdy sheeter” in police records and narrated earlier incidents involving his implication in criminal cases, including a suo motu case in 2017 and subsequent custody under the KCOCA. He described being summoned by CCB officers on several dates in April 2019 through calls made to his wife, attending a rowdy parade, and facing alleged verbal abuse, physical handling, and searches of his residence without authority of law. He claimed that these actions created fear of arbitrary arrest and implicated violations of Article 21.

Also Read: POSH Act | Woman May Approach ICC Of Her Own Workplace Against Sexual Harassment By Employee Of Another Organisation : Supreme Court

The petitioner submitted that though 24 criminal cases were earlier registered against him, all had ended in acquittal or quashing except for the rowdy sheet. He contended that there was no legal procedure in the Karnataka Police Manual or under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for summoning persons whose names appeared in rowdy registers. The State opposed the petition, asserting that the petitioner remained a rowdy sheeter, and that surveillance was conducted as per Standing Orders. It admitted that no legal procedure existed for summoning a rowdy sheeter but defended oral summoning as long-standing practice. The State referenced police duties under existing statutes and standing orders to justify surveillance activities.

The Court recorded that it was not examining the validity of the rowdy sheet itself and confined consideration to the issue of oral summoning. It noted the coordinate Bench’s observations that “policing by its very nature, is a tough job… Police being the officials of the State do not enjoy immunity from constitutional control and more particularly Part III discipline.” The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s view in Malak Singh that “surveillance may be intrusive and it may so seriously encroach on the privacy of a citizen as to infringe his fundamental right to personal liberty… That cannot be permitted” and that permissible surveillance required close watch “without any illegal interference.”

It quoted statutory duties under the BNSS, 2023, noting that police may prevent offences and issue notices under Section 35(3). The Court also examined Order No.1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual defining a rowdy, but observed that the Manual lacked statutory backing. It recorded that the Manual’s provisions did not prescribe a hearing before entering a person’s name in the rowdy register and that a coordinate Bench had added a requirement for a proposal notice.

The Court observed from M.A. Khaliq that “summoning the person without there being any crime registered against him and detaining him would itself be violative of basic principles.” It acknowledged the police’s right to maintain surveillance but cautioned that this must be balanced against fundamental rights. Citing Sunil Batra, the Court noted that “Part III of the Constitution does not part company with the prisoner at the gates” and quoted that actions which are “punitively outrageous… or cruel… is shot down by Articles 14 and 19 and if inflicted with procedural unfairness, falls foul of Article 21.”

The Court also relied on Selvi, noting that “it is not within the competence of the judiciary to create exceptions and limitations on the availability of these rights.” It observed that without a law prescribing a procedure for summoning rowdy sheeters, the State could not resort to oral summoning. It quoted that the right not to be disturbed is part of privacy under Article 21 and stated that “so long as there is no procedure established by law, the respondents cannot summon a person whose name appears in the Rowdy Register.”

It stated the need to balance the rights of the individual with societal interest, noting the State’s claim of over 6500 rowdies in Bengaluru. It observed that if a rowdy sheeter was suspected of commission of an offence, then Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 empowered the police to issue lawful notices.

The Court allowed the petition in part and directed that “so long as the petitioner does not involve in the commission of any offence and is not suspected of being involved in a crime, the Police shall not summon him orally only on the ground that his name appears in the rowdy list.”

Also Read: Employees Of Karnataka Media Academy And Karnataka State Temperance Board Not Entitled To Pensionary Benefits As Government Servants; Karnataka High Court

The petitioner must provide a mobile number to the concerned police stations where rowdy sheets were maintained, and “the respondent - Police can inform him by sending an Short Message Service (SMS) or WhatsApp message to visit the Police Station for obtaining information about his activities.” The Court added that if the petitioner failed to appear despite such intimation, “they may visit his house for enquiry or surveillance.”

“if the petitioner involves in any crime punishable under any enactment, then the protection granted to him by this order shall automatically vanish.” It clarified that “this order shall not affect the power of the Executive Magistrate or the District Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate… under Chapter IX of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri. Mayur D. Bhanu, Sri. Shamanth Gowda. J., and Sri. Charan N.S., Advocates
For the Respondents: Sri. Mahantesh Shattar, Additional Government Advocate

Case Title: Sunil Kumar @ Silent Sunil v. State of Karnataka & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:50811
Case Number: WP No. 18789 of 2019
Bench: Justice R. Nataraj