Court confirms guidelines for entering names in surveillance register, emphasizing judicial scrutiny to protect fundamental rights, particularly when individuals do not meet criteria for habitual offenders.

ORDER :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. All the above Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions involve the same question as to whether history-sheet under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 (for short, 'Rules of 1965') can be opened in respect of the petitioners and can their names be entered in the surveillance register or not? Hence, with the consent of all the parties, above petitions are being decided by this common order.

2. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners submit that the police authorities have committed serious error of law and jurisdiction and their names have been illegally entered in the surveillance register in ignorance of Rules 4.4 and 4.9 of the Rules of 1965 as well as the provisions of the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953 (for short, 'the Act of 1953').

3. Learned counsels for the petitioners have also submitted that the petitioners, despite there being several criminal cases against them, would not come within the purview of 'habitual offender' as defined under the Act of 1953. As per guidelines, not each and every pending case or decided case could be taken into consideration by the police authorities for entering name of any person in the surveillance register.

4. It is also submitted by the learned counsels for the petitioners that the action of putting the name in surveillance register has got drastic consequences and would infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioners.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed all the above petitions and submitted that in all the cases history-sheet have been prepared strictly in accordance with the Rules and while exercising the powers as per law.

6. Learned counsels for the petitioners have relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in a batch of matter led by S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.792/2016 (Sanjay Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), in which after considering the relevant guidelines in the Rules of 1965 as well as in the Act of 1953, as also by considering earlier judgments, following guidelines have been given:

"9.1 For the sake of brevity, this Court arrives at the following uniform criteria to determine whether an entry of a person's name in the surveillance register is justifies:

(a) A person having three consecutive convictions against him, and being a habitual offender, shall be liable for continuance of entry of his name in the surveillance register, while declaring him as a history-sheeter; however, if the convictions are 15 years or before, then the history sheet/entry of his name in the surveillance register will not fall in this criteria of sustenance.

OR

(b) If a person is having more than ten cases against him, in totality, irrespective of the result, his name, at the discretion of the concerned authority, entered in the surveillance register, while declaring him as a history-sheeter, is justified and deserves continuance; but if a person if having more than ten cases and all of them are 10 years old, then the history sheet/entry of his name in the surveillance register, will not fall in this criteria of sustenance.

9.2 As an upshot of the above, this Court observes that a history-sheet shall be amenable to judicial scrutiny as above, and thus, while keeping into consideration Rule 4.4 and Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 and the precedent law, this Court is of the opinion that the entry of a person's name in the surveillance register/history sheet, on count of his being a habitual offender, shall not be interfered with, if there are three consecutive convictions against such person, o