Judgment

MATHEW, J:- The petitioner is a citizen of India. He challenges the validity of Regulations 855 and 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations purporting to be made by the Government of Madhya Pradesh under S. 46 (2) (c) of the Police Act,

2. The petitioner alleges that several false cases have been filed against him in criminal courts by the police but that he was acquitted in all but two cases. He says that on the basis that he is a habitual criminal, the police have opened a history sheet against him and that he has been put under surveillance.

3. The petitioner says that the police are making domiciliary visits both by day and by night at frequent intervals, that they are secretly picketing his house and the approaches to his house, that his movements are being watched by the patel of the village and that when the police come to the village for any purpose, he is called and harassed with the result that his repetition has sunk low in the estimation of his neighbours. The petitioner submits that whenever he leaves the village for another place he has to report to the Chowkidar of the village or to the police station about his departure and that he has to give further information about his destination and the period within which he would return. The petitioner contends that these actions of the police are violative of the fundamental right guaranteed to him under Articles 19 (1) (d) and 21 of the Constitution, and he prays for a declaration that Regulations 855 and 856 are void as contriving his fundamental rights under the above articles.

4. In the return filed, it is stated that "the petitioner has managed to commit many crimes during the period 1960 to 1969. In the year 1962 the petitioner was convicted in one case under Section 452 IPC and was fined Rs, 100/- in default rigorous imprisonment of two months and in another case he was convicted under Section 456 IPC and was fined Rs. 50/and in default rigorous imprisonment of one month. In the year 1969 the petitioner was convicted under Sections 55/109 Cr.P.C, and was bound over for a period of one year by SDM, Jatara. In the year 1969, the petitioner got compounded a case pending against him under Sections 325/147/ 324 IPC. Similarly, he also got another case under Sections 341/324 IPC compounded." The case of the respondent in short is that the petitioner is a dangerous criminal whose conduct shows that he is determined to lead a criminal life and that he was put under surveillance in order to prevent him from committing offences.

5. Regulation 855 reads:

"855. Surveillance proper, as distinct from general supervision, should be restricted to those persons, whether -or not previously convicted, whose conduct shows a determination to lead a life of crime. The list of persons under surveillance should include only those persons who are believed to be really dangerous criminals. When the entries in a history sheet or any other information at his disposal, leads the District Superintendent to believe that a particular individual is leading a life of crime he may order that his name be entered ,in the surveillance register. The Circle Inspector will thereupon (open a?) history sheet if one is not already in existence and the man will be placed under regular surveillance."

Regulation 856 provides:

"856. Surveillance may, for practical purposes, be defined as consisting at the following measures:

(a) Thorough periodical enquiries by the station-house officer as to repute habits, association, income, expenses and occupation.

(b) Domiciliary visits both by day and night at frequent but irregular intervals.

(c) Secret picketing of the house and approaches on any occasion when the surveillance (surveillant?) is found absent.

(d) The reporting by patels, mukaddams and kotwars of movements and absences from home.

(e) The verification of such movements and absences by means of bad character rolls.

(f) The collection in a history sheet of all information bearing on conduct.

It must be r