Police surveillance through rowdy sheets cannot be renewed mechanically based on past criminal records or vague reports; it requires objective, contemporaneous material demonstrating a current threat to public order to avoid violating the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21.

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…To issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the Respondent No.5 in opening and continuing Rowdy Sheet against the Petitioner as illegal, colorable exercise of power, contrary to the settled principles of legal position and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondents Nos.2 to 5 to close the Rowdy Sheet against the Petitioner………..”

2.1. Mr. Akanksha Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. M. Shiva Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondent police authorities in opening and continuing a Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner, and seeking appropriate directions for quashing the said proceedings.

2.2. Learned counsel further submits that, as on date, no recent criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, except two cases registered in the year 2016. It is submitted that several criminal cases were earlier registered against the petitioner, however, most of them have ended either in acquittal, compromise, or closure by filing final reports. Despite this factual position, the respondent police authorities have continued and periodically renewed the rowdy sheet without properly evaluating the relevant material. Therefore, pleaded that the arbitrary continuation of such surveillance measures, without any recent criminal activity or tangible material, is illegal and violative of constitutional guarantees. Hence, learned counsel prays that the impugned proceedings be quashed.

3.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that the petitioner has been involved in fifteen criminal cases across various police stations and is a habitual offender. It is submitted that one Sessions Case and one case relating to house trespass are presently pending, while the remaining thirteen cases have ended in acquittal. It is further submitted that the police authorities have acted strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders governing police surveillance, and that the rowdy sheet has been maintained only as a preventive measure to monitor the activities of the petitioner in order to safeguard public order.

3.2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further contends that the maintenance of rowdy sheets is a recognized preventive mechanism under the Police Standing Orders, and that the same has been periodically reviewed and renewed by the competent authority. Therefore, according to the respondents, no illegality or impropriety can be attributed to the action of the police authorities, and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have perused the material placed on record.

5. The basic factual position regarding the registration of criminal cases against the petitioner is not in dispute. Out of the fifteen cases registered against the petitioner, thirteen cases have ended either in acquittal, compromise, or closure, and only two cases registered in the year 2016 remain pending, one of which is a Sessions Case.

6. In this context, reference must be made to Standing Order No.601-A of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, which authorizes the police authorities to open and maintain rowdy sheets or suspect sheets against persons whose conduct is considered prejudicial to public peace and order. The