Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3898
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
K. Vediappan
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Home Department Chennai & Others
W.P.No.18127 of 2012
Decided On : 20-09-2012
For the Petitioner:S. Kumara Devan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, Spl. G.P.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution and care in police actions, especially in relation to personal liberty, surveillance, and the opening and retention of history sheets.
Headnote:
History Sheet - Challenge to opening of history sheet - PSO 746, PSO 749, Article 21, Kharak Singh Vs. State of U.P., Gobind Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Malak Singh V. State of P & H, Ganesan Vs. The District Superintendent of Police - The court discussed the validity of opening and retaining a history sheet against the petitioner, citing relevant Police Standing Orders and Supreme Court judgments on personal liberty, surveillance, and police actions. The court directed the respondents to delete the petitioner's name from the history sheet.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a District Organizer of a non-political social organization, challenged the opening of a history sheet against him by the police, citing instances of alleged harassment and false allegations made by the police.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the continued retention of the petitioner's name in the history sheet was unjustified and humiliating, especially considering his position in the social organization. The court directed the respondents to delete the petitioner's name from the history sheet but disallowed the grant of compensation.
Issues: Challenge to opening and retention of history sheet, violation of personal liberty, validity of police actions, grant of compensation
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on relevant Police Standing Orders and Supreme Court judgments on personal liberty, surveillance, and police actions to determine the validity of opening and retaining a history sheet. The court emphasized the need for caution and care in police actions and directed the deletion of the petitioner's name from the history sheet.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition to the extent of directing the respondents to delete the petitioner's name from the history sheet but disallowed the grant of compensation.
Key Points: - The continued retention of the petitioner's name in the history sheet was unjustified and humiliating, especially considering his position in a social organization (!) (!) . - Opening of history sheets, surveillance lists, and domiciliary visits are subject to strict caution and care to avoid violating personal liberty (!) (!) . - Entries in surveillance registers must be limited to persons specified in police standing orders and based on reasonable belief, with mechanical extensions unjustified (!) (!) . - The court directed the respondents to delete the petitioner's name from the history sheet maintained against him (!) . - Compensation was not granted as no sufficient case was made out for its award (!) .
What is the validity of opening and retaining a history sheet against a person under police standing orders?
What are the limits on police surveillance and maintaining history sheets concerning personal liberty?
When may a court direct deletion of a person's name from a police history sheet?
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an action of the respondents in opening a History sheet in his name in H.S.No.516/D, dated 02.04.2009 on the file of the 4th respondent, i.e., the Inspector of Police, Harur Police Station, Dharmapuri District and after setting aside the same seeks for a direction to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the petitioner.
2. When the writ petition came up on 16.7.2012, this court ordered notice on admission and had directed the learned Special Government Pleader to get instructions from the respondents. Accordingly, a counter affidavit, dated 31.7.2012 has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District, i.e., the second respondent. The original file relating to the History sheet was also circulated.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the District Organizer of Periyar Diravidar Kazhagam in Dharmapuri District. The said organization is a non political social organization. He is a strong follower of Thanthai Periyar E.V.Ramasami and Baba Saheb Dr.B.R.Ambedkar. He also undertakes contract works on sub contract basis from the registered contractors. From his younger days, he has been working for the upliftment of the downtrodden people. He had also used the provisions of the RTI Act to bring out the illegal activities of certain Government functionaries. During the year 2006, one P.Churchil, an Advocate in Harur, had received huge amounts from his client one Shanmuganathan by using the name of the then District Munsif. He did not hand over the amount and also did not fulfill the promise made by him. On 31.3.2006, the said Shanmuganathan had asked for the refund of the amount. A wordy quarrel took place and that the petitioner intervened in the said dispute. However, the said Advocate gave a complaint against the petitioner in the Harur Police Station in Crime No.206 of 2006 under various offences. On 16.12.2007, the people of the locality made a complaint against the TNEB line man by name Ramaswamy for his irregularities. Hence he had assumed that it was under the instigation of the petitioner, the public made a complaint against him. Therefore, a complaint was made against the petitioner which was registered in Crime No.1087 of 2007. For both cases, so far no charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner had come out on bail.
4. The petitioner had given several interviews to 'Junior Vikatan', a Tamil Biweekly as well as in other news papers against the atrocities of the local police. On 16.08.2009, he had given an interview against the malpractices committed by one Dr.T.Selvam (5th respondent). He made an application to the fifth respondent asking for some particulars. On 27.11.2009, a Senior Civil Surgeon of the hospital had furnished some particulars. On 14.12.2009, he had paid money for copying of documents. But the fifth respondent had refused to give documents. This news item was published in 'Dinamani' daily. As against the refusal, the petitioner had gone on appeal to the appellate authority. On 09.02.2010, when he had visited the hospital for taking treatment, the 5th respondent had appeared in the scene and scolded him by caste name. It is in this context, some complaints were made by both sides. The 4th respondent came to the house of the petitioner on 11.9.2011 and entered the house along with local rowdies. He was forcibly taken to the A.Pallipatti Police Station and kept in the lock up room without his clothes. His signatures were obtained in blank papers. He was also threatened that he will be finished off in an encounter. His arrest was also not informed to his relatives contrary to the D.K.Basu's guidelines. It was stated that the respondents had opened a History sheet without any justification. There were no materials for opening the history sheet and no case has been registered against him for contacting his party leader Kolathur Mani and also for the alleged support given to the terrorist. Even the allegation
