ROOP LAL MAKKAR Vs. THAKUR JAGDISH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by two different citizens challenge the legal validity of orders of surveillance and of opening of history sheets made against them by the Delhi Police pursuant to the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules as applicable to Delhi, and raise important questions as to the nature and extent of right of privacy and as to the justiciability of an order of surveillance, etc.

(2.) Petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 1378 of 1973 is and was, at the material time, one of the Directors and Vice-Chairman of the 0m Oil and Oil Seeds Exchange Limited, Delhi, and claims to be a, social worker associated with large number of societies devoted to social and religious purposes. Petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 1454/73 had also been a Director of Om Oil & Oil Seeds Exchange Limited. The petitioners, as indeed the aforesaid company, have been carrying on business in forward trading in certain commodities. Both the petistioners have been carrying on business in different portions of Coronation Hotel Building where the Exchange has been operating for the last many years. It appears that at some stage the company and some of its Directors and others associated with it, including the two petitioners, came to the adverse notice of the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Police for alleged illegal forward trade dealings in certain commodities which tend to disturb the normal price pattern of such commodities as a sequel to which a number of measures were taken by the Delhi Police against various persons connected with the Company, including the two petitioners. It is alleged that the two petitioners were prosecuted by the Delhi Police for violation of the Forward Contract Regulations Act, 1952, on the charge of illegal forward trading, on certain commodities. The adverse action taken by the Delhi Policy against the petitioners appears to have culminated in the opening of the history sheets of the petitioners and of surveillance of the activities of the petitioners under Rules 23.4 and 23.9 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. According to the petitioners, the opening of the history sheet and the surveillance pursuant .to it has taken an oppressive form in that the police not only maintain a watch over their movements but also resort to regular picketing outside the office of the petitioners which prevents normal social and business contacts and interferes with the petitioners' right of privacy and constitutes an unconstitutional infringement of the petitioners' fundamental right of personal freedom guaranteed under Article 19 (l)(d) and of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners further contend that the petitioners are entitled to the history sheets and the surveillance orders being quashed in enforcement of the aforesaid' fundamental right of the petitioners. In the alternative, the petitioner seek the annulment of the impugned actions on the ground that the petitioners have been, made history sheeters and subjected to illegal surveillance without any material whatsoever which may justify such adverse action.

(3.) The petitions are opposed and the impugned actions are sought to be justified on the grounds that the right of privacy which the petitioners seek to enforce does not flow either from the fundamental right guaranteed in Article 19(l)(d) or can be said to be an ernnation from or an extension of the fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The impugned ctions are sought to be justified on merits on the ground that they were based on the antecedents of the petitioners and the satisfaction of the appropriate authorities based on objective material which would justify action under the aforesaid provisions.