@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
D. Sreedevi, J.@mdashPetitioner has filed this original petition for a declaration that Section 250 Rowdy History Sheet and Section 265 General Instructions regarding surveillance contained in the Kerala Police Manual as unconstitutional since the same offends the fundamental right guaran-teed under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P-1.
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 Bharatiya Janatha Party and a member of the Temple Committee of Devi Temple, Valiyakulangara at Ochira. For about a decade, he was an active political worker and trade union worker. His political activities mainly confined to Kayamkulam, Ochira, Karunagappally and its suburban areas. He challenges Ext. P-l, 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 Sections 106, 107, 109 and 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Sections 48, 51 and 51A of the Kerala Police Act and u/s 294 of the Indian Penal Code. The police authorities have initiated security proceedings against the petitioner through the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kollam, Ext. P-2 is the preliminary order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
3. One Bhaskaran 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 manhandled 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. P-3 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 dharna before the house of the President of Temple Committee. Another case is C.C. No. 207 of 1992 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate. There was a faction fight between R.S.S. and I.S.S., for which a belated first information statement was lodged by the I.S.S. as is seen from Ext. P-7. Police initiate proceedings u/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.
4. The third respondent has filed a statement showing that one Bhaskaran Pillai filed petition No. 30 of 1991 before the Ochira Police Station against the petitioner on the allegation that Chandran Pillai and 3 others manhandled Bhaskaran Pillai. One Ramachandran Pillai filed a petition before the Ochira Police Station that he is being regularly harassed by the petitioner, Chandran Pillai. Chandran Pillai and 19 others picketed the house of Advocate Bhargavan. In connection with that Crime No. 157 of 1991 has been registered u/s 341,I.P.C. Then Chandran Pillai and 9 others manhandled one Ibrahimkutty and a case has been registered under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 327 read with 149, I.P.C., at the Ochira Police Station and was duly investigated and a charge was laid in C.C. No. 207 of 1992. Since he had habitually committed breach of peace and disturbed public tranquillity, security proceedings were initiated against him by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in M.C. No. 132 of 1992 and later the same was dropped on 2-1-1993. After his name was included in the list, on 25T6-1993 one Bhargavi Amp filed a petition, stating that she and so many ladies are being regularly harassed by Chandran Pillai while they were going to Temple. According to them, on investigation it was revealed that the petitioner is a man of dangerous character, creating rowdism in the locality after consuming liquor. Therefore, they pray for the dismissal of the petition.
5. Section 259 of the Police Manual, which prescribes general duties and powers of the police, provides that to keep a progressive record and watch of the activvities of persons found to be indulging in rowdism, a record has to be maintained and those records will be opened on the orders of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer or any higher authority on the basis of the reports from local police officer or from other sources. The main forms of rowdism are mentioned in Clause 2. The complaint filed by Bhargavi Amma and others goes to show that his behaviour towards women and girls amounts to indecent behaviour. Picketing the house of Advocate Bhargavan comes under Sub-clause (v), i.e., in timidation of peace loving people by acts of violence or by show of force using abusive language. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ramachandran Pillai who had lodged the complaint against the petitioner has filed an affidavit, stating that he has not filed any complaint against Chandran Pillai. After filing a complaint before the police, he has filed this affidavit, which cannot be given any weight. In the counter statement it has been stated that security proceedings u/s 107, Cr. P. C. has been initiated against Chandran Pillai on 28-6-1993 in Crime No. 104 of 1993 at Ochira Police Station. On investigation it was found that the petitioner is a dangerous character, creating rowdism in the locality, after consuming liquor and he is in the habit of involving in anti-social activities associated with violence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner''s personal liberty is curtailed. He has challenged Section 259 of the Police Manual as illegal as, according to him, it is only an executive order which cannot override the provisions of the Constitution. The learned Government Pleader invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in
Having given the matter our best consideration, we are clearly of the opinion that the freedom guaranteed by Article 19(1)(d) is not in-fringed by a watch being kept over the movements of the suspect. Nor do we consider that A-21 has any relevance in the context as was sought to be suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner. As already pointed out, the right of privacy is not a guaranteed right under our constitution and therefore the attempt to ascertain the movements of an individual which is merely a manner in which privacy is invaded is not an infringement of a fundamental right guaranteed by Part III.
6. The petitioner is a suspect as so many crimes have been registered against him. In two or three cases, he was warned by the police. Proceedings u/s 107, Cr. P. C. were initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Therefore, in order to maintain peace and tranquillity such persons are to be listed for watch. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, the police can have a watch over the suspect, which is not unconstitutional. Therefore, I do not find any reason to allow this original petition.
In the result, this original petition is dismissed. No costs.
