Rowdy Sheet Can't Be Mechanically Renewed In Absence Of Concrete Material Showing Disturbance To Public Peace: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that a rowdy sheet cannot be continued on the basis of vague allegations, mechanical endorsements, and annual renewals unsupported by concrete material showing disturbance to public peace. Quashing the rowdy sheet opened against a social worker, Justice N. Tukaramji observed:"In the present case, the material on record indicates that the renewal of the rowdy sheet has been carried out at annual intervals, contrary to the requirement of periodic review as contemplated under the Standing Orders; the proposal for renewal submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police contains generalized and unsubstantiated allegations, such as the petitioner being “young and energetic” and allegedly encouraging tribals to encroach upon lands; the recommendation made by the Circle Inspector and the approval granted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer appear to be mechanical, with endorsements such as “permitted,” without recording any independent reasons or satisfaction based on material; and there is no specific material placed on record demonstrating any recent overt act by the petitioner affecting public peace or law and order.Such a mechanical exercise of power, without application of mind and without supporting material, is contrary to the mandate of law and the safeguards envisaged under the Standing Orders". The Court held that in the "absence of concrete material demonstrating that the petitioner was habitually involved in activities affecting public peace", continuation of the rowdy sheet was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.The petitioner, Madisetti Samelu, had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the rowdy sheet opened against him on the rolls of the police. He claimed that he is a social worker engaged in the welfare of backward and tribal communities and had been falsely implicated in multiple cases on account of local political rivalry and his support to landless poor persons. He contended that most of the cases had either ended in compromise or been withdrawn, and yet the police continued the rowdy sheet and repeatedly interfered with his liberty by insisting on his appearance and frequently sending constables to his residence.The State opposed the plea, contending that as many as 24 cases, including bind-over proceedings, had been registered against the petitioner between 2003 and 2024. According to the police, he was visiting tribal villages, conducting meetings, instigating local inhabitants to agitate for land and encroach upon private, Government and forest lands, thereby creating law and order problems. The authorities also claimed that continuation of the rowdy sheet was necessary as a preventive measure.The High Court, however, found the State's justification lacking in substance. It observed at the outset that in a democratic polity, activities such as organizing meetings, raising awareness among marginalized communities, or mobilizing them to agitate for land rights cannot by themselves be treated as unlawful unless there is credible material showing intention to incite violence or disturb public order.The Court said, "The respondent authorities have made general allegations that the petitioner is encouraging encroachments and engaging in unlawful activities; however, no specific instances, supporting material, or concrete evidence have been placed on record to substantiate such claims. Mere assertions, in the absence of verifiable material, cannot justify continued surveillance measures that impinge upon individual liberty". Referring to Standing Order No.601 of the Telangana Police Manual, the Court held that opening and continuation of a rowdy sheet is permissible only as a preventive measure where a person is habitually involved in offences affecting public peace and tranquility, and that the Standing Order mandates periodic and meaningful review because such surveillance has serious implications for rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21.The court also referred to K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India and Malak Singh v. State of Punjab to underline that the right to privacy is part of Article 21 and that surveillance over individuals cannot be excessive, arbitrary, or devoid of procedural safeguards.Holding that the continuation of the rowdy sheet was unsustainable, the Court quashed it and directed the police authorities to forthwith remove the petitioner's name from the rowdy/suspect sheet registers. It, however, clarified that the order would not preclude the police from initiating fresh proceedings, if warranted, strictly in accordance with law and in compliance with Standing Order No.601.Case Title: Madisetti Samelu v. State of Telangana & Ors.Case No.: W.P. No.23418 of 2016Appearance: Mr. Namavarapu Chantibabu for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Rowdy Sheet Can't Be Mechanically Renewed In Absence Of Concrete Material Showing Disturbance To Public Peace: Telangana High Court

Ananya Tangri

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rowdy Sheet Can't Be Mechanically Renewed In Absence Of Concrete Material Showing Disturbance To Public Peace: Telangana High Court

Ananya Tangri

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers