Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(All) 201

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
N.S.Rathour, Pankaj Naqvi, JJ.
Jeeshan @ Jaanu And Another - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U P And 4 Others - Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. -10974 of 2020
Decided On : 29-01-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant : Abou Sofian Usmani,Upendra Upadhyay
For The Respondent: G.A.

Point of law: Publication of List of criminals – Pendency of 10 cases – Charge sheet not filed in 4 cases - Practice of putting the names on the flysheet board is derogatory to the concept of human dignity and privacy - Publication of names of accused persons violates their right to privacy and dignity

Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 82, 41 – Arms Act – Section 27 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 – SC/ ST Act – Section 3 – Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 323, 504, 506 – U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 – Rules 3, 57, 7 – Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 – Sections 4 and 21 – Harrasment by Police – Chargesheet – Petitioners are real brothers engaged in business and claim to be income tax payees aggrieved with a list published at Police Station, showing their names as top-10 criminals for the year 2020 – As per contention of petitioner no. 1, police has shown nine cases against him, out of which, he has yet not been charge-sheeted in four cases while two cases are lodged at the behest of Prayagraj Development Authority regarding irregularities in the constructions. – Whether policy/circular is ultra vires of the provisions contained in Constitution of India especially Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, Police Act, 1861 or U.P. Police Regulations – Whether the policy/circular grants right to the police authories to publish names of so called criminals/accused persons on the flysheet board of the concerned police station – Whether publication of names of such accused persons violates the right to privacy and dignity.
Finding of the court: It is apparent that neither socially nor politically it is desirable to curtail human dignity, which is infringed when names of accused persons are displayed on the flysheet board of the police station concerned or anywhere else without there being any proclamation issued against them under Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Thus, this practice of putting the names on the flysheet board is derogatory to the concept of human dignity and privacy. – Once it is held that the act of the authorities of the police is illegal, a logical question arises as to whether petitioners need to be compensated by the State for flagrant violation of their right to privacy and dignity. – Yes, they do need to be compensated and the State can not go scot-free. – Merely, saying that it is discharging its sovereign functions of governance by making society aware about crime and criminals, they cannot escape their responsibility for their failure to learn to understand constitutionally sanctified protections extended to individuals to preserve their fundamental right of privacy and dignity. – The immediate question which arises next is, as to what should be the quantum of compensation. – Court would have proceeded to determine the compensation but as this aspect has neither been argued nor raised but has been putforth as a corollary to the discussion made holding that publication of names of the petitioners amounts to violation of right to privacy and dignity, Court leave it to the petitioners to approach competent court in appropriate proceedings to claim compensation for the wrongs done by the State.
Result: Petitions Allowed

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Upendra Upadhyay, Siya Ram Verma and Sri Shiv Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vinod Diwaker, learned A.A.G. for the State assisted by Sri Deepak Mishra and Ms. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A. and Sri Vinay Saran, learned Amicus assisted by Sri Saumitra Dwivedi.

These three petitions raise a common issue of violation of Right to Privacy on account of list of top-10 criminals displayed at different Police Stations namely, Khuldabad, District-Prayagraj, Police StationBithoor, District-Kanpur Nagar and at Police Station-Karchhana, District-Prayagraj.

Brief facts of each petition

1. Petitioners in C.M.W.P. No. 10974 of 2020 are real brothers engaged in business and claim to be income tax payees. They are aggrieved with a list published at Police Station-Khuldabad, showing their names as top-10 criminals for the year 2020. Petitioner no. 1-Jeeshan @ Jaanu is at serial no. 3 and petitioner no. 2 at the top of list of top-10 criminals at Police Station-Khuldabad, (Annexure-2) to the writ petition. Petitioner no. 1 is also aggrieved with the opening of his history sheet on 20.08.2020.

(1A) Petitioners grievance is that they are relatives of Ex-Member of Parliament from Allahabad Constituency and due to political vendetta, they are being harassed by the police authorities by illegally publishing their names in the list of top-10 criminals of Police Station-Khuldabad.

(1B) As per the contention of petitioner no. 1, police has shown nine cases against him, out of which, he has yet not been charge-sheeted in four cases while two cases are lodged at the behest of Prayagraj Development Authority regarding irregularities in the constructions.

(1C) Case of petitioner no. 2 is that in the year 2007, three cases were registered against him simultaneously at Police Station-Dhoomanganj, District-Prayagraj.

(1D) Vide order dated 29.10.2013 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Allahabad, petitioner no. 2 has been acquitted in Case Crime No. 287 of 2007. In another Case Crime No. 120 of 2007, he is on bail, granted by the Court of Sessions Judge, Allahabad while in third case, i.e. Case Crime No. 113 of 2007, he was granted bail by the High Court.

(1E) Two new cases have been registered against petitioner no. 2 in the year 2019 and 2020 purely on political motivation. In one of the cases, he has been granted anticipatory bail while in another, police authorities have been restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner. Another fresh case has been registered against him in 2020 at Police Station-Khuldabad under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(1F) It is submitted that only one case is registered against each of the petitioners at Police Station-Khuldabad and yet on the basis of a single case their names have been included in the list of top-10 criminals of Police Station-Khuldabad.

(1G) It is petitioner's contention that the act of the authorities of State is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as Right to Life includes the right to live with human dignity. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 59, it is pointed out that Right to Life also means that the State cannot curtail the dignity of a citizen in an arbitrary manner.

(1H) Petitioner's contention is that personal enmity is being taken to illogical ends, so as to harass them by violating their fundamental rights and malafidely declaring them to be top-10 criminals of Police Station-Khuldabad, so as to tarnish their image and dent their dignity in public and harass their entire family. In above backdrop, a prayer has been made for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to delete the name of the petitioners from the list of top-10 criminals of Police Station-Khuldabad, District-Prayagraj with a further prayer to direct the police authorities to close the history sheet of p