Surveillance Without Sanction Of Law Offends Article 21 And The Right To Privacy | AP High Court Orders Immediate Closure Of Rowdy Sheet And Declares Police Action As Tainted In Law
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhara Rao held that the action of the police authorities in opening and continuing the Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner was illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed the immediate closure of the Rowdy Sheet maintained against the petitioner. Stating the fundamental right to privacy and personal liberty, the Court categorically stated that police authorities cannot open or continue rowdy sheets or conduct surveillance without the sanction of law. The judgment clarified that the collection of personal data and its usage for the prevention of crimes must be in accordance with established legal procedures and constitutional safeguards. The Court further directed that the photograph of the petitioner must be removed from the notice board of the Kalyanadurgam Police Station in the interest of justice.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the police authorities in opening and continuing Rowdy Sheet No. 451 against him as illegal and in violation of his fundamental rights. He also sought directions to remove his photograph from the notice board of the Kalyanadurgam Police Station, Anantapuramu District.
The petitioner asserted that he belongs to an agricultural family and is currently employed with Reliance Industries. He claimed to be leading a peaceful life without any complaints from the public. The petitioner alleged that a false petty case was foisted against him by one Onteddu Sreekanth Reddy, leading to the registration of a criminal case under Sections 448, 324, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police filed a charge sheet, and the case was numbered as C.C. 1793 of 2022, pending trial before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyandurgam.
The petitioner contended that despite the pendency of a single criminal case, the third respondent, Deputy Superintendent of Police, allowed the fourth and fifth respondents to open a rowdy sheet against him. He argued that the opening of the rowdy sheet was mechanical, without application of mind, and based on non-existent grounds. The petitioner further asserted that the police action curtailed his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and caused indignity in society, harming his reputation and leading to mental harassment.
In his affidavit, the petitioner stated that the police were repeatedly summoning him to the police station on the pretext of taking photographs and thumb impressions, violating Police Standing Order 742. He maintained that such actions were beyond the scope of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual and were contrary to established legal principles. The petitioner relied on the judgments in Govind vs. State of M.P. and Malak Singh vs. State of Punjab to support his contentions.
The respondents filed a counter affidavit asserting that a charge sheet had indeed been filed against the petitioner under Sections 448, 324, 506 read with 34 IPC and that the case was pending trial. They claimed that the petitioner had scant respect for the law and that, to curb his unlawful activities, a suspect sheet was opened after obtaining permission from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer on 18.12.2020. They further submitted that under Police Standing Order 601, the police could open a rowdy sheet if the activities of the suspect were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affected peace and tranquillity in the area, and if victims were unwilling to come forward due to threats.
The Court carefully examined the legal principles governing the opening and continuation of rowdy sheets. Referring to the landmark judgment in Kharak Singh vs. The State of U.P., the Court recorded, "Under the shadow of surveillance, it certainly amounts to deprivation of freedom. He can move physically, but he cannot do so freely, for all his activities are watched and noted." It further observed, "The act of surveillance is certainly a restriction on the said freedom. It cannot be suggested that the said freedom is also bereft of its subjective or psychological content."
The Court noted that the Apex Court in Vijay Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar held that "the expression 'habitually' means 'repeatedly' or 'persistently'. It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts." The Court also referred to Dhanji Ram Sharma vs. Superintendent of Police to underline that a suspect may not have been convicted but could still be considered a habitual offender based on reasonable grounds.
The Court stated the decision in B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that "a solitary case resulting in a breach of peace is not enough to include his name in the rowdy sheet." Similarly, in Majid Babu v. Government of A.P., it was observed that "two instances would not make a person a habitual offender. At least more than two instances should be present before a person can be described as habitual offender."
The Court further referred to the judgment in Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, wherein it was held that "rowdy sheets cannot be opened against any individual in a casual and mechanical manner. Dubbing a person as an habitual offender and to open a rowdy sheet is not sufficient." The Court stated that the acts committed must have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquility.
Discussing the decision in Mohammed Quadeer v. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, the Court observed that "A.P. Police Standing Orders were not statutory in nature and did not invest the police officers with any powers of arrest, detention, or investigation beyond what is provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure." The Court also cited the common order passed in Udathu Suresh vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, which declared that "The police cannot open or continue a rowdy sheet or collect data pertaining to a person without the sanction of law."
The Court held that in the present case, the police authorities failed to establish that the petitioner’s activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquillity in the area. It was recorded, "The opening of the rowdy sheet in the name of the petitioner was therefore tainted in law in its very inception."
The Court allowed the writ petition and issued the following directives:
"The respondents herein are hereby directed to close the rowdy/history sheet being maintained in the name of the petitioner therein."
The Court concluded that the continuation of the said rowdy sheet by the police authorities, ignoring the law laid down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court, cannot be sustained.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ayesha Azma S, Advocate
Case Title: Gonabavi Jani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010139782025
Case Number: W.P. No. 7369 of 2025
Bench: Justice Tarlada Rajasekhara Rao
[Read/Download order]
