MALAK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To what extent may the citizen's right to be let alone be invaded by the duty of the police to prevent crime is the problem posed in these two appeals by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution. The two appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants seeking the removal of their names from the surveillance register maintained at Police Station 'A' Division, Amritsar City and for a direction that the respondent Police Officers should be restRamed from harassing the appellants by calling them to the Police Station frequently without any justification. The appellants Malak Singh and Jaswant Singh are brothers and they claim to be engaged in a business known as 'Continental Electricals', besides owning a hotel named Park Restaurant on Grand Trunk Road, Amritsar. They state that they are income-tax, assessees and assert that they are law abiding citizens. They claim that on account of their active political affiliation to the Akali party, one Prithipal Singh a Congress M.L.A. is inimically disposed towards them and has been instrumental in having the appellant falsely implicated in some criminal cases. All the criminal cases ended either in acquittal or discharge. The appellants were also detained under the MISA for sometime but they were released from detention as the Advisory Board refused to confirm their detention. The appellants claim that they took active part in exposing the corrupt activities of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Amritsar and had even published wall posters with the result that the Deputy Superintendent of Police had instituted a prosecution for defamation against the appellants. As a measure of humiliation and harassment, the names of the appellants were entered in the surveillance register maintained at the Police Station 'A' Division, Amritsar. The appellants allege that their photographs have been displayed amongst those of notorious criminals and bad characters at the Police Station. Whenever a Senior Police Officer visits the Police Station the appellants are required to attend the Police Station along with other persons whose names are entered in the surveillance register. They are also needlessly asked to associate themselves with various investigations though they have nothing whatever to do with those investigations. As, according to the appellants, there is no material whatsoever on the basis of which the names of the appellants could be entered in the surveillance register, they filed writ petitions in the High Court questioning the inclusion of their names in the surveillance register and also praying that the police should be restRamed from harassing them by calling them to the Police Station without any justification.

(2.) In the High Court, counter-affidavits on behalf of the respondents were filed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, who claimed that the appellants were opium smugglers and habitual offenders and receivers of stolen property and therefore, their names were entered in the surveillance register. It was, however, denied that their photographs had been displayed at the Police Station. It was pleaded that the reasons for entering their names in the surveillance register were to be found in the history sheets which were confidential documents and which, therefore, could not be disclosed. It was also pleaded that one of the appellants had been convicted in a criminal case but it transpires from the rejoinder filed by the appellants that the conviction was set aside on appeal. As the writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court, the appellants have preferred these two appeals after obtaining special leave from this Court.

(3.) Shri V. M. Tarkunde, learned counsel, who appeared as Amicus Curiae for the appellants urged that there were no grounds on the basis of which the respondents could entertain a reasonable belief that the appellants were habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property and therefore, there was no justification for including the names of the appellants in the surveillance register. He further submitted that an order for surveillance was a serious encroachment on the liberty of the citizen and therefore, it was necessary that a person should be given an opportunity to show cause before his name was included in the surveillance register. As this was not done, the inclusion of the names of the appellants in the register was bad. We may add that the vires of the Punjab Police Rules which provide for the maintenance of a surveillance register was not questioned before us.