Late Night Police Visits To Rowdy Sheeter's Residence Violates His Privacy: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that Police cannot visit the residence of a 'Rowdy Sheeter' during late night hours as it amounts to intruding into his privacy.

Thumkunta Madhava Reddy, a rowdy sheeter, had approached the High Court alleging that the Police enters in the midnight every day ringing the door bell/knocking the door, waking him up late night, thereby disturbing his sleep. He contended that such police action is illegal and unconstitutional.

Opposing his plea, State submitted before the Court that, a rowdy sheet was opened against him and police are keeping a watch on him to prevent committing of further crimes and except maintaining the rowdy sheet and keeping a watch, police are not interfering with his life and liberty.

On the action of opening a rowdy-sheet against a person, Justice P. Naveen Rao observed:

"Right to life, liberty and privacy are sacrosanct to a person. A person is entitled to lead his life with dignity and self respect. These rights flow out of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Surveillance on person certainly infringes on his right to life, privacy and liberty. These rights cannot be infringed except by due process of law. Compelling public interest may require intrusion into privacy of a person but while doing so great care and caution has to be observed. Thus, if Police resort to surveillance on the ground that rowdy-sheet is opened on petitioner, it must show justification, impelled to ensure peace and order in the society."

The court noted that in Mohammed Quadeer and others Vs. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, it was held that opening of the rowdy sheets and retention thereof except in accordance with law would amount to infringement of fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The court noted that, in Sunkara Satyanarayana Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department, the court had keeping a person under unobtrusive watch to prevent crime and to maintain law and order, as authorised by law, is reasonable restriction permissible under the Constitution. The following directions were issued in the said case:

1. If the surveillance is not obtrusive, the same does not violate the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The same does not either in material or palpable form affect the right of the suspect to move freely nor can it be held to deprive the history sheeter / rowdy sheeter of his personal liberty.
2.  In testing whether fundamental right of free movement or personal liberty is infringed or not, it is to be remembered that infringement should be direct as well as tangible. If surveillance hurts personal sensitivities, the same is not a violation, for the constitution makers never intended to protect mere personal sensitiveness.
3. If the action of the police is found to infringe the freedoms guaranteed to the history sheeter / rowdy sheeter and violates his right to privacy, in that, the surveillance is excessively obtrusive and intrusive, it may seriously encroach on the privacy of a citizen as to infringe the fundamental right to privacy and personal liberty under Article 21 as well as the freedom of movement guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India and the same is impermissible.
4. In either case-whether the regulation is statutory or non-statutory-domiciliary visits and picketing by the police should be reduced to the clearest cases of danger to community security, and there can be no routine follow-up at the end of a conviction or release from prison in every case

In this case, opening of rowdy-sheet was not challenged, and instead it was submitted that he has no objection if Police keep a watch on his movements, during the day, but cannot disturb his privacy and cannot disturb him in late night hours. Taking note of this, the judge observed:

"There is merit in the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that only on the ground that rowdy-sheet is opened, Police cannot visit the residence of the petitioner in the late night hours and disturb him. It does amount to intruding into privacy offending the right of the person. It is not the case of the respondent-Police that petitioner continues to involve in criminal activities, which can be assumed to be resulting in possible law and order problem in the society and such late night incursion was necessary in the larger public interest. Therefore, the action of the Police in visiting the house of the petitioner in the late night hours is not valid. . In the facts of this case, therefore, the respondents are directed to confine the surveillance on the petitioner to the barest minimum, and if warranted visiting the residence of the petitioner shall be only during the course of the day and such surveillance should not be excessively obtrusive and intrusive and shall not disturb the petitioner during late night hours. If petitioner is required in the investigation / enquiry, they shall follow due procedure required by law."

Case: Thumkunta Madhava Reddy vs. State of Telangana [WRIT PETITION No. 18726 of 2020 

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Read Judgment