1980 (12) TMI 196 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Citizen's right to privacy versus police duty to prevent crime.
2. Justification for inclusion of names in the surveillance register.
3. Requirement of opportunity to show cause before inclusion in the surveillance register.
4. Confidentiality and non-disclosure of history sheets and surveillance registers.
5. Limits and legality of police surveillance.

Summary:

1. Citizen's Right to Privacy vs. Police Duty to Prevent Crime:
The primary issue addressed is the extent to which a citizen's right to privacy can be invaded by police duties to prevent crime. The appellants sought removal of their names from the surveillance register and an injunction against police harassment. The court recognized that while surveillance is necessary for crime prevention, it must not infringe on personal liberty guaranteed by Art. 21 and freedom of movement under Art. 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.

2. Justification for Inclusion in Surveillance Register:
The appellants argued that there were no grounds for their inclusion in the surveillance register as they were law-abiding citizens and not habitual offenders. The respondents claimed the appellants were opium smugglers and habitual offenders, justifying their inclusion. The court examined the relevant records and found sufficient grounds for the Superintendent of Police to entertain a reasonable belief that the appellants were habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property.

3. Opportunity to Show Cause:
The appellants contended that they should have been given an opportunity to show cause before their names were included in the surveillance register. The court held that the nature of the function involved in making an entry in the surveillance register is administrative and non-judicial, thus excluding the application of the rule of audi alteram partem. Confidentiality of the enquiry process was deemed necessary to prevent jeopardizing informants and defeating the purpose of surveillance.

4. Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure:
The court emphasized that history sheets and surveillance registers are confidential documents. The contents, particularly the sources of information, must remain undisclosed to protect public interest and informants. The court rejected the application of natural justice principles in this context, as it could lead to undesirable results and defeat the ends of justice.

5. Limits and Legality of Police Surveillance:
The court underscored that police surveillance must be unobtrusive and within legal bounds. Surveillance should not squeeze fundamental freedoms or offend individual dignity. The rules prescribe strict conditions for making entries in the surveillance register, and excessive or unjustified surveillance entitles a citizen to court protection. The court concluded that the police must act with caution and care, ensuring surveillance is confined to the prescribed limits.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, affirming the legality of the appellants' inclusion in the surveillance register, subject to the court's observations regarding the mode of surveillance. The court reiterated the necessity of surveillance for crime prevention while ensuring it does not infringe on fundamental rights.