The legality of police surveillance on institutions facing trial for alleged offences under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 was discussed, and the court held that the surveillance was arbitrary and violated Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.

MURALIDHARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) W. P. 14274/ 1986 : Petitioner is a registered partnership firm; it is asserted that it is running a Nature Cure Clinic at Yamunabai Road, Madhavnagar, Bangalore. It is said that it is registered under the Companies Act and is assessed for professional tax. Its function, as claimed in the petition, is to solve health problems by nature care without drug or surgery. It has the facility of steam bath, massaging and yogas. Petitioner's grievance is as follows :"the respondents are sending Policemen regularly to the institute of the petitioner and the posting of the Policemen at the institute of the petitioner is preventing the registered patients of the petitioner from taking treatment. By illegal acts and surveillance of the respondents and their officers the business of the petitioner is affected very much and if the same is continued by the respondents, the petitioner will be forced to close down the business. The acts of the respondents violate the guaranteed fundamental rights of the petitioner under Arts. 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. "again in para 'j' it is averred thus :the posting of the two policemen at the premises of the petitioner and the regular intrusion of police officers who enter the premises of the petitioner and threaten the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and is without the authority of law and violates the right to privacy and right to personal liberty guaranteed to the petitioner. The said illegal action also violates the fundamental right of the petitioner under Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India i. e. , the right to carry on any business, vocation or profession. "the relief prayed for is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus not to interfere with the business and not to harass by having police surveillance. W. P. 14540/1986 :

( 2 ) PETITIONER is a proprietary concern. It claims to treat patients on lines of Naturopathy with specialised sophisticated instruments. In para 19, it is averred thus :"the posting of the two policemen at the premises of the petitioner and the regular intrusion of police officers who enter the premises of the petitioner and threaten the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and is without the authority of law and violates the right to privacy and right to personal liberty guaranteed to the petitioner. The said illegal action also violates the fundamental right of the petitioner under Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India (i. e.) the right to carry on any business, vocation or profession. "the relief in both the petitions is one and the same.

( 3 ) COMMON questions of law and fact arise, hence they are clubbed and are taken up for final disposal.

( 4 ) THE relevant paras in statement of objection, filed in these two cases read thus :"the respondents have been receiving complaints that the petitioner, in the guise of running a Naturopathy Institute, has been as a matter of fact, running a Brothel. On receipt ; of credible information, on 17-12-1985 at about 13 hours, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Special Squad, Bangalore, conducted a raid on the premises of the petitioner referred to in the writ petition in the presence of panchas, when it was found, there were eight ladies, and two men, who on interrogation admitted that the ladies had been procured for the purpose of immoral activities and the men had come there for the very same purpose. The activities of these persons amounted to offences punishable under the provisions of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act. Hence, these persons along with the cashier and partner of the petitioner-firm, who were present in the premises, were arrested and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. A case was registered in Crime No. 546 of 1985 of High Grounds Police Station, for offences punishable under Ss. 3, 4, 7 and 8 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act. Subsequently, a charge-sheet has been laid in the above case in C. C. No. 92 of 1986. ""however, in the d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document