Back
High Court Of Delhi
PETER SAMOUEL WALLACE - Appellant
Versus
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 37 of 1978
Decided On : 04/10/1981
SURVEILLANCE - PUNJAB POLICE RULES - CONSTITUTIONALITY - RIGHT TO PRIVACY - FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT - REASONABLE RESTRICTION - HABITUAL OFFENDER - ENTRY IN SURVEILLANCE REGISTER - JUSTIFICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Indian citizen, challenged the orders of his surveillance and opening of history sheet against him by the Delhi Police pursuant to the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules as applicable to Delhi. He contended that the impugned orders were mala fide, based on no material, and violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(d), and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to Delhi, which authorized opening of history sheets and provided for entry of names in the Surveillance Register and mode of surveillance, had the force of law and were not unconstitutional. The court further held that the provisions of the Rules permitting the opening of history sheets and vesting discretion with the Superintendent of Police for directing the placing of the name of a person whom he considered to be a habitual offender in the surveillance register and also the mode of surveillance were not unconstitutional as those Rules did not unreasonably curtail that person's right to move freely throughout the territory of India or infringe his right to privacy.
Issues: 1. Whether the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to Delhi, which authorized opening of history sheets and provided for entry of names in the Surveillance Register and mode of surveillance, were unconstitutional? 2. Whether the provisions of the Rules permitting the opening of history sheets and vesting discretion with the Superintendent of Police for directing the placing of the name of a person whom he considered to be a habitual offender in the surveillance register and also the mode of surveillance were unconstitutional?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to Delhi, were issued by and with the authority of the provincial Government under Sections 7 and 12 of the Police Act, 1861. Section 7 of the Act provided for appointment, dismissal, etc. of inferior officers. Under Section 12 of the Act, the State Government was empowered to approve rules consistent with the provisions of the Act. Under Section 149 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, in so far as they were consistent with the provisions of that Act, continued to be in force. Chapter 23 of the Rules dealt with the prevention of offences. Rule 23.4 provided for the maintenance of a surveillance register in every Police Station in terms of the said Rule. There was no provision in the Delhi Police Act providing for the opening of the history sheet or of the surveillance register or of the mode of surveillance. Prima Facie it could not be said that Chapter 23 of the Rules was inconsistent and with the Delhi Police Act, 1978. 2. The Supreme Court in Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, AIR 1975 SG 1378, had held similar police regulations framed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh under Section 46(2)(c) of the Police Act, permitting surveillance, opening of history sheets and other actions by the police intended to prevent the commission of offences, to have the force of law. Section 149 of the Delhi Police Act specifically saved the operation, amongst others, of the Punjab Police Rules to the Union Territory of Delhi. A bare reading of that Section showed that on coming into force of the Delhi Police Act the Rules including Chapter 23 thereof (Prevention of offences) had not ceased to be in force in Delhi. These provisions thus continued to have the force of law.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the court directed that the petitioner's name be struck off from Part II of the surveillance register forthwith and further that his history sheet to be closed.
( 1 ) THE petitioner. Pater Samuel Wallace, an Indian Citizen, by this petition seeks removal of his name from the surveillance register maintained by the Delhi Police. According to him, the orders of his surveillance and opening of history sheet against him by the Delhi Police pursuant to the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules as applicable to Delhi, constitute an infraction of his fundamental right guaranteed to him under Articles 19 (l) (a), 19 (l) (d) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The impugned orders passed in the year 1964 are also challenged on the ground that those were made Mala fide and were based on no meterial.
( 2 ) THE petitioner claims to be a respectable person. He states that he is the General Manager of M/s. Watson Manufacturing Co. (India), New Delhi, a firm carrying on export business. According to him, he is also the Regional Manager in India of two American Companies. His case is that he is a social worker of repute being president of two organisations, namely, (1) All India Council of Indian Christians and (2) Indian Christian Association, Delhi
( 3 ) HIS allegations in the writ petition are that in the year 1975 he was detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act because of his political activities. His grievance is that the Police personnel are hostile to him as in his capacity as a member of the Public Relations Committee, which has been constituted by the Delhi Administration, Delhi, he had been criticising the police authorities whenever he found it necessary to do so. According to him, although he is not a habitual offender yet orders had been passed to open his history sheet under Rule 23. 9 of the Punjab Police Rules and further to keep him under illegal surveillance, his name has been entered in part II of the Surveillance Register. He alleges that the said orders are based on no material and are not justified.
( 4 ) HE further alleges in his petition that because of those two orders, "he is virtually condemned in the official records as an undesirable person and these entries cause him mental agony and anguish, and affect the right of privacy. " The complaint is that the entries in the history sheet and in the Surveillance Register have been made known by the police to the people of the locality in which he is residing with the result that he has become a person of disrepute. The petitioner further submits that with a motive to harm his reputation the information regarding his being a bad character has been leaked out by the police to the press who have published it in the newspapers.
( 5 ) THE respondents have opposed this petition. To justify the impugned action, they have relied on the antecedents of the petitioner. They have annexed with the counter-affidavit a list of cases in which the petitioner was involved at the relevant time. It is admitted that he has never been convicted in any one of those cases. The case of the respondents is that the appropriate authorities were objectively satisfied that petitioner is a cheat and his history sheet be opened and his name be brought on the Surveillance Register. The impugned action was taken in accordance with the provisions of the Rules.
( 6 ) THE first legal submission made by Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Punjab Police Rules as applicable to Delhi which authorise opening of history sheets and provide for entry of the names in the Surveillance Register and mode of sureillance have no legal force. The second submission of counsel is that the said Punjab Police Rules (hereinafter called the Rules ) 23. 4, 23. 5, 23. 7 and 23. 9 are unconstitutonal.
( 7 ) LET me deal with the first contention. The Rules were issued by and with the authority of the provincial Government under Sections 7 and 12 of the Police Act, 1861. Section 7 of the Act provides for appointment, dismissal etc. of inferior officers. Under Section 12 of the Act the State Government is empowered to approve rules
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
