S CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this Original Petition for a declaration that S.250 Rowdy History Sheet and S.265 General Instructions regarding surveillance contained in the Kerala Police Manual as unconstitutional since the same offends the fundamental right guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P1.

(2.) Petitioner is an active trade-union worker. He is a member of the District Working Committee of the Bharathiya Mazdoor Sangh and an office bearer of Bharathiya Janatha Party and member of the Temple Committee of Devi Temple, Valiyakulangara at Ochira. For about a decade, he was an active political worker and a trade union worker. History of political activities mainly confined to Kayamkulam, Ochira, Karunagappally and its suburban areas. He challenges Ext. P1, which is a rowdy list prepared by the Ochira Police, wherein his name is shown as item No. 2. According to him, by enlisting him in the rowdy list he is considered as a bad character. Once included in the rowdy list, and a history sheet is opened, one can be put under surveillance and close watch. In a way, it prevents him from free movement and association with other persons, his private life and privacy are thereby destroyed. Right to personal liberty is thus denied to him. Freedom of movement and association were also denied. By including his name in the rowdy list, the police can deal with him under S.106, 107, 109 and 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and S.48, 51 and 51 A of the Kerala Police Act and under S.294 of the Indian Penal Code. The police authorities have initiated security proceedings against the petitioner through the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kollam. Ext. P2 is the preliminary order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.

(3.) One Bhaskara Pillai filed petition No. 31 of 1991. On this no enquiry was conducted. He was not called by the police, nor was he warned. The allegation that the petitioner man handled Bhaskaran Pillai is false. Another complaint No. 347/91 is alleged to have been filed by one Ramachandran Pillai of Kumpazha Veedu. That petition, according to him, is a bogus one. Ramachandran Pillai has filed Ext. P3 affidavit stating that he has not filed any complaint against the petitioner. Another case is S. T. No. 3617 of 1991. It was registered against the petitioner and others for staging dharma before the house of the President of the Temple Committee. Another case is CC No. 207 of 1992 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate. There was a faction tight between R.S.S. and I.S.S. for which a belated first information statement was lodged by the I.S.S. is seen from Ext. P7. Police initiated proceedings under S.107 against all the accused without conducting enquiry. Petitioner has come to know that his name is included in the rowdy list only when it is published. He was not given an opportunity to be heard before his name is included. Therefore, the petitioner prays that the very inclusion of his name in the rowdy list and the provisions in the Police Manual are unconstitutional.