ORDER :

“Your freedom ends where my nose begins.”

A man is walking on a busy crowded street swinging his arms with gay abandon, when somebody stopped him. He said “I have my freedom and these are my arms”. An elderly gentleman told him that by swinging your arms you cannot hit me on my face - “Your freedom, therefore, ends where my nose begins”. This is how the concept of reasonable restriction was planted in our mind at a young age.

2. The question that arises in these cases is similar and has been pending before the Indian Judiciary for years. The opening remarks made in 1981 in Malak Singh and Others v State of P&H and Others, (1981) 1 SCC 420 = AIR 1981 SC 760 by Justice O.Chinnappa Reddy are as follows:

“To what extent may the citizen’s right to be let alone be invaded by the duty of the police to prevent crime is the problem posed in these two appeals by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.”

3. This big batch of writ petitions has been filed questioning the opening and continuation of rowdy sheets against the petitioners in all these cases.

4. Learned counsels have argued the matter at length, but the leading arguments were advanced by Sri Rajareddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.3568 of 2022, who also challenged the vires of the Police Standing Orders under which these rowdy sheets are being opened and continued. Therefore, this Writ Petition is taken up as the lead Writ Petition.

5. This Court has also heard Sri K.S.Murthy, Learned Senior counsel, Sri V.V. Satish, Sri G. Ramgopal, Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar and others. The learned counsels adopted the essential arguments advanced by the lead counsels and each of them supplemented the same by making their submissions on the facts of each case.

6. In reply to this Sri V. Maheswar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home argued the matter at length for the respondent-State of Andhra Pradesh.

7. This Court at the very outset places on record its deep sense of appreciation for the learned counsels who argued the matter at length and also to Sri V.Maheswar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home, who articulated the State’s view point very efficiently.

8. The gist of the submissions made by all the learned counsels for the petitioners can be summarized as follows:

a) The opening and the continuation of rowdy sheets is contrary to law. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in K.S.Puttaswamy v Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 has clarified that privacy is also a Fundamental Right and that the judgments in cases of Kharak Singh v State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295 and M.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300 are not good law. In view of the declaration of law by the highest Court of the land that Privacy is a Fundamental Right, it can be restricted only in accordance with a “law”.

b) It is argued that as far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned all the rowdy sheets are being opened and continued on the basis of Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders, which are merely departmental instructions and are not “law”. The Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, and the orders therein on which the State places reliance, cannot be called “law”. It is also submitted that the standing orders have been declared to not to have the force or/effect of law, in the cases of Mohammed Quadeer and Ors., v Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and Ors., 1993 (3) ALD 30 and Sunkara Satyanarayana v State of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department and Ors., 1999 (6) ALT 240. It is submitted that in view of these pronouncements of law relating to the very same Police orders, no further declaration need be sought, but still the lead petitioners have sought a declaration that the Standing Orders are not law in view of the recent judgment in K.S.Puttaswamy case (2 supra).

c) Alternatively, it is also submitted that even the rules and procedure prescribed in Standing Orders are not being followed and that the Rowdy Sheets are being opened and continued mechanically witho