Using people's photos, details to record rowdy sheets violates privacy: Andhra HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in a judgment has held that police should desist from labelling someone as a “rowdy” under the Police Standing Orders. The classification allowed the police to conduct intrusive surveillance, including displaying their photos, parading them and visiting their homes for surveillance. Stating that these actions constitute an ‘infringement of the right to privacy,’ the High Court held that the “Police Standing Orders do not have the force of law and they cannot be used as the means or the justification for opening and continuation of rowdy sheets. They are mere administrative guidelines.” 

The order was given by a single bench while disposing of a batch of writ petitions filed by Udathu Suresh and others challenging the opening and continuation of rowdy sheets against them. The State’s counsel represented by G Maheswar Reddy had argued that the Police Standing Orders were not unconstitutional and noted that procedural safeguards were provided and implemented. The counsel argued that rowdy sheets were being opened and continued only in cases where it was absolutely necessary and in public interest. Citing the Telangana High Court judgment in 2020 and the BS Prakash vs State of Karnataka case, the counsel said, “In view of the compelling State interest, certain guidelines have to be issued and that the institutionalised rowdy register and history sheeting, should not be abruptly discontinued with a stroke of pen.” He argued that collection of data and intelligence was essential for early detection and prevention of a potential crime.

In his judgment, Justice DVSS Somayajulu said, “This collection of photos; the display of photos; branding a person as "rowdy"; summoning to the Police Station, parading / waiting domiciliary/home visits etc as per the Police Station Orders are a direct infringement of the petitioners' right to privacy. Henceforth with the existing Police Standing Orders the police cannot do the same. The police cannot summon any person to the Police Station, visit any home or house for surveillance; for gathering information, take or display photographs, fingerprints etc., or even classify/ label a person as a ROWDY etc. They cannot carry out intrusive or obtrusive surveillance.(sic)"

The action of calling a person to the Police Station, taking photographs, and displaying photos are a direct violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the Court said. 

Further, the judgment concluded that the State should either frame statutory rules or enact a law within a short time on these issues of surveillance.  “Since there is a need for gathering information/intelligence to prevent crime, this should be done on a high priority…It is hoped that the State would urgently frame an appropriate law on this subject keeping in view the laws on the subject including the aspect of ‘privacy’ being declared a Fundamental Right,” the Court said.

The Court suggested that there are provisions of other laws like the AP Habitual Offenders Act 1962, which could be utilised for the registration of habitual offenders (Sec 3 and 4) by collecting their fingerprints, photographs, palm impressions and foot prints (Sec 6) and also place restrictions on their movement, in case the police want to prevent a crime. 

The Court reminded the police that they cannot – under the existing orders – indulge in night visits, domiciliary visits to the houses of a suspect or accused. They cannot take or demand photographs, fingerprints, except under the procedure established by a ‘law’ and if the conditions laid down are satisfied. Accused or suspects cannot be summoned or called to the Police Station or anywhere else either during festivals, elections or weekends. They cannot be made to wait at the Police Stations for any reason or seek permission to leave the local jurisdiction, the judgment concluded.