SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Kar) 127

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Krishna S.Dixit, J.
Sri. B S Prakash, S/o Late Siddappa - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary To Home Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4504 Of 2021(GM-POLICE) C/W Writ Petition Nos. 6136 of 2017, 29117 of 2019, 14359, 14399 of 2020, 8564, 9116, 13998, 13999, 14003, 14022, 14566, 15696, 15708, 15756, 15802, 17538, 18632, 19880, 23902, (GM-POLICE)
Decided On : 22-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Sarat Chandra Bijai, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Sri. Vinod Kumar M, AGA, Sri. Sridhar Prabhu, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)

Point of Law : Section 23 of the Police Act prescribes it as the duty of police officers to collect and communicate intelligence affecting the public peace, to prevent the commission of offences and public nuisance.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 13(2), 14, 19, 19(1)(d), 21, & 22 – Criminal Records Act, 1985 – Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, 1974 – Per contra – Morality of the law may vary, but is real – Basic goodness of all human beings is a spiritual axiom, a fall–out of advaita of cosmic creation and spring of correctional thought in criminology – Para 4.

Finding of the court: Merely because a person is acquitted of the criminal charge or that criminal proceedings against him are quashed and since then long time has lapsed, he cannot as a matter of right seek deletion of his name from the history sheet on that ground per se – Something more is required – After all, rowdy sheeting & history sheeting are not punitive measures but preventive techniques of possible disruption of societal peace – In any event, a History Sheeter can be shifted to register of rowdies, if there are cogent reasons for that – However, all these are matters left to regulated police discretion – Deprivation of liberty of an individual is a matter of grave concern and permissible only when law authorizing it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to goals of community good and necessity spelt out in constitutional guarantees – Procedural due process rests on foundations of ‘just, fair & reasonable’ clause, ensuring that substance of right is not eroded by mere dictates of black letter of law

Results: Writ Petitions is disposed off.

ORDER :

The following observations of Hon’ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the case of MOHAMMAD GIASUDDIN vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 1978 SCR (1) 153 should prelude this judgment:

“…Criminality is a curable deviance. The morality of the law may vary, but is real. The basic goodness of all human beings is a spiritual axiom, a fall–out of the advaita of cosmic creation and the spring of correctional thought in criminology…If every saint has a past, every sinner has a future, and it is the role of law to remind both of this. The Indian legal genius of old has made a healthy contribution to the world treasury of criminology. The drawback of our criminal process is that often they are built on the bricks of impressionist opinions and dated values, ignoring empirical studies and deeper researches….India, like every other country, has its own crime complex and dilemma of punishment. Solutions to tangled social issues do not come like the crack of dawn but are the product of research and study, oriented on the founding faiths of society and driving towards that transformation which is the goal of free India...”

All these petitions involving similar questions of law & facts essentially pertain to ‘Rowdy Sheeting’ and ‘History Sheeting’. After service of notice, the respondent – State having entered appearance through the learned Additional Government Advocate, has filed its Statement of Objections resisting the petitions. A few police officials rich in experience and talented too participated in these proceedings and thereby, appreciably contributed to the decision making process.

II. RELIEFS SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONERS:

Petitioners in W.P No. 4504/2021, W.P No. 6136/2017, W.P No. 29117/2019, W.P No. 14359/2020, W.P No.8564/2021, W.P No.9116/2021, W.P No. 13998/2021, W.P No.13999/2021, W.P No. 14003/2021, W.P No.15756/2021, W.P No. 15802/2021, W.P No. 14399/2020, W.P No. 17538/2021 & W.P No. 23902/2021 seek a Writ of Certiorari for quashing endorsements/communications whereby their names are loaded to the ‘rowdy register’. Petitioners in W.P No. 14399/2020, W.P No. 14022/2021, W.P No.15696/2021, W.P No. 15708/2021, W.P No. 19880/2021, W.P No. 17538/2021 & W.P No. 23902/2021 seek a Writ of Mandamus for producing particulars of entries in the ‘Rowdy Register’. Petitioners in W.P No. 14566/2021 and 18632/2021 have sought for a Writ of Prohibition and a Declaration respectively. Even their grievance, presumably is as to the legality of continuation of their names in the ‘Rowdy Register’.

III. CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES:

(i) Petitioners inter alia argue that there exists no discernable procedure for entering of their names to the Rowdy Registers maintained in the jurisdictional police stations and that there is no procedural & substantive safeguarding of victims of rowdy sheeting, which has many implications on their liberty, privacy & reputation. Mindless rowdy sheeting violates their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21, & 22 of the Constitution. In support of their submission, they rely upon comparative study material of Criminal Records Information obtained from foreign jurisdictions like Australia, Canada, U.S. & U.K. They press into service the following decisions: K.S PUTTASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA, (2017) 10 SCC 1, KHARAK SINGH vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, AIR 1963 SC 1295, DHANJI RAM SHARMA vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, AIR 1966 SC 1766, GOBIND vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, (1975) 2 SCC 148, MALAK SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, (1981) 1 SCC 420, PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES vs. UNION OF INIDA, (1997) 1 SCC 301, BHAVESH JAYANTI LAKHANI vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, (2009) 9 SCC 551, R.G SOMASHEKAR GOWDA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ILR 2012 KAR 1038 and KAZIA MOHAMMED MUZZAMMIL vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ILR 2001 KAR 1735.

(ii) Respondent – State, per contra, contends that rowdy sheeting has been a necessary pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top