Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court on Friday held that the practice of putting names of the accused persons on the flysheet board at police stations without issuance of proclamation is derogatory to the concept of human dignity and privacy enshrined under Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
Further, the action of police officers in disclosing the identity of criminals in police stations in public gaze is absolutely unwarranted and uncalled for as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Hence, the court directed the director general of police (DGP) to forthwith remove the names/identities of top- 10 criminals along with their criminal antecedents from the flysheet board from all the police stations. In addition, the court also directed the DGP to ensure that a circular in the light of this judgment is sent to all the police heads of the districts so as to ensure strict compliance. However, the court clarified that the benefit of the judgment will not be given to any “claimed offenders and fugitives in law”. The court further held that there is nothing wrong in preparing a list of top criminals in a district for surveillance.
While allowing the writ petition filed by Jeeshan alias Jannu, Balveer Singh Yadav and Doodh Nath Yadav, a division bench comprising Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Justice Vivek Agarwal observed, “It is apparent that neither socially nor politically it is desirable to curtail human dignity, which is infringed when names of the accused persons are displayed on the flysheet board of the police station concerned or anywhere else without there being any proclamation issued against them under section 82 of Criminal Procedure Code. Thus, this practice of putting the names on the flysheet board is derogatory to the concept of human dignity and privacy.”
The three petitioners were aggrieved by the publication of their names in the list of top 10 criminals displayed at various police stations at districts of Prayagraj and Kanpur Nagar. The petitioners being real brothers, are also relatives of an ex-member of Parliament from Allahabad constituency. They contended that it was because of political vendetta that the police authorities published their names in criminal list.
According to the petitioners, only one case was registered against each of them and it was on the basis of one case their names were included under the top 10 criminals.
Therefore, the petitioners contended that personal enmity was being taken to illogical ends so as to harass them and that the act of police authorities publishing their names was in violation of right to life and right to privacy as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Regarding violation of right to life and right to privacy due to the said publication, the court relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in KS Puttuswamy Vs Union of India, and observed that “the judgment focusing on the aspect of privacy as a right to life has in fact insulated an individual from exercise of authority either by the legislation or the state so to prevent a person being made an object of ridicule or scorn”.
While also relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited Vs Union of India AIR 1986 SC 515, the court observed that “the validity of a subordinate legislation can be challenged on the grounds of unreasonableness”.
Therefore, the court held that the policy regulation does not suffer from any lack of competence and cannot be held as ultra vires of the Constitution, Police Act or the UP Police Regulations. The court f held that there is nothing wrong in selecting top 10 criminals in a district for surveillance and observed, “The circular of DG, Police, U.P dated July 6, 2020 envisaging a criteria to select top 10 criminals in a district and in each police station is in exercise of power to maintain surveillance, to which no illegality could be attached. We also hold the circular dated July 6, 2020 to be lawful and valid. However, there is nothing in the circular which enables the police to disclose the identity of an accused and his criminal antecedents in public gaze.”