HARI LAL P.L. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner primarily wants his name to be removed from the rowdy list maintained by respondents 5 and 6.

(2.) Petitioner alleges that while he was in college, he was involved with student politics and began a political career with the Communist Party of India, as a result, he was involved in a few minor criminal cases. Later, due to certain ideological differences with the leadership, he quit the said party and joined the Bharatiya Janata Party, which agitated the leadership of his erstwhile party. Petitioner further alleges that, after the CPI(M) came to power in 2006, the police had, in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Police Manual, included him in the rowdy list and also prosecuted and harassed him and adopted every dubious measure including initiating proceedings under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short KAAPA). The preventive detention order was cut short as it was not approved. Thereafter he was even roped in as an accused in a murder case for allegedly harbouring the murderers and was incarcerated for a long period. Again in 2009, based on a false police report, petitioner alleges that he was subjected to preventive detention, which order was also revoked within seven days. According to the petitioner his woes continued when he was once again detained under the KAAPA in 2014, again based on a false report and later, by the time the Advisory Board revoked the order of detention, 44 days had elapsed. Petitioner alleges that the sixth respondent again falsely implicated him in unnecessary cases and the Human Rights Commission intervened and severely criticised the sixth respondent for harassing the petitioner, as evident from Ext.P5.

(3.) Petitioner alleges that in the meantime his name was included in the rowdy history list by referring to cases which were non-existent or cases which were minor in nature. Petitioner also alleges that for three decades he was denied a passport alleging the existence of criminal cases against him. He avers that for the last several years, as there were no criminal cases registered against him, he requested respondents 2 and 3 in January 2024, to remove his name from the rowdy history list maintained by respondents 5 and 6. Petitioner contends that despite running from pillar to post to have his name removed from the rowdy history list, the respondents have not moved a little finger, and on the other hand, they are devising means to deny him such a relief. According to the petitioner, he intends to leave the country and join his son, who is residing abroad, and since retention of his name in the rowdy history list without any basis would seriously prejudice his liberty, he seeks directions to remove his name from the rowdy history list. Petitioner has also sought a compensation of Rs.10.00 Million from respondents 4 to 6 for the illegal and arbitrary actions, apart from seeking directions for departmental action against him.