http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: MALAK SINGH ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & HARYANA & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/12/1980

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) PATHAK, R.S.

CITATION:  1981 AIR  760            1981 SCR  (2) 311  1981 SCC  (1) 420

ACT:      Right to  privacy of  the citizen  versus duty  of  the police  to   prevent  crime-Surveillance   register  to   be maintained by  the police as per Punjab Police Rules, vires; thereof not  challenged-Whether a  person is  entitled to be given an opportunity before his name is included in the said register-Whether the  names in the register could be entered only if  persons fitted  into the  category of those who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property  whether they  have been  convicted or  not- Punjab Police  Rules, 1.5,  1.21, 23.4, 23.5, 23.7, 23.8 and 23.31 scope  of-Police Act  1861 Section  23-Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(d).

HEADNOTE:      Dismissing the appeals, the Court ^      HELD :  (1) Prevention  of crime  is one  of the  prime purposes  of   the  constitution   of  a  police  force.  In connection with  the duties  spoken of  in section 23 of the Police Act,  1861, it  will be  necessary to  keep  discreet Surveillance over reputed bad characters, habitual offenders and other  potential offenders.  Organised crime  cannot  be successfully fought  without close  watch of  suspects.  But surveillance may  be  intrusive  and  it  may  so  seriously encroach on  the privacy  of a  citizen as  to infringe  his fundamental right  to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21  of   the  Constitution   and  the  freedom  of  movement guaranteed by  Art. 19(1)(d).  That such  a thing  cannot be permitted  is   recognised  by   the  Punjab   Police  Rules themselves. [316G, 317A-B]      Rule 23.7  which prescribes  the mode  of  surveillance permits close  watch over  the movements of the person under surveillance   but   without   any   illegal   interference. Permissible surveillance  is only  to the  extent of a close watch over  the movements  of the persons under surveillance and no  more. So  long as surveillance is for the purpose of preventing crime and is confined to the limits prescribed by Rule  23.7   a  person   whose  name   is  included  in  the surveillance registered  cannot have  a  genuine  cause  for complaint. Interference  in accordance  with law and for the prevention of  disorder and crime is an exception recognised

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

even by the European Convention of Human Rights to the right to respect  for a  person’s private and family life (Article 8). [317B-D]      2. Discreet  surveillance  of  suspects,  habitual  and potential offenders, may be necessary and so the maintenance of  history   sheet  and  surveillance  a  register  may  be necessary too,  for the  purpose  of  prevention  of  crime. History sheets and surveillance registers have to be and are confidential documents.  Neither the  persons whose  name is entered in  the register  nor any other member of the public can have  access to the surveillance register, the exception being that  the District Magistrate and the Ilaqa Magistrate are entitled to examine the records in accordance with Rules 1.15 and  1.21. The  nature and  character of  the  function involved in  the making  of an  entry  in  the  surveillance register 312 being utterly  administrative and  non-judicial the  rule of audi altrem  partem is not applicable. In fact observance of the principles of natural justice may defeat the very object of the  rule providing  for  surveillance.  There  is  every possibility of the ends of justice being defeated instead of being served.      [317G-H, 318A-B]      Further the entry in the surveillance register is to be made on  the basis  of the  material provided by the history sheet whose  contents, by  their  very  nature  have  to  be confidential. It would be contrary to the public interest to reveal the  information in  the history  sheet, particularly the source  of information.  Revelation  of  the  source  of information  may   put  the   informant  in   jeopardy.  The observance of  the principle  of natural justice, apart from not serving the ends of justice may thus lend to undesirable results. The  rule audi  altrem partem  is,  therefore,  not attracted. [318C-E]      Re v.  K (Infants),  1965 A.C.  201 &  238, quoted with approval.      3. The  intention behind  Rule 23  is not  to give  the police a  licence to  enter the  names of  whoever they like (dislike ?)  in  the  surveillance  register;  nor  can  the surveillance be  such as  to squeeze the fundamental freedom guaranteed to  all citizens or to obstruct the free exercise and enjoyment of those freedoms; nor can the surveillance so intrude  as   to  offend  the  dignity  of  the  individual. Surveillance  of   persons  who   do  not  fall  within  the categories mentioned in Rule 23.4 or for reasons unconnected with the  prevention of  crime,  or  excessive  surveillance falling beyond  the limits  prescribed by  the  rules,  will entitle a  citizen to  the Court  protection which the court will not  hesitate to  give. The  very rules which prescribe the  conditions  for  making  entries  in  the  surveillance register recognises  the caution  and care  with  which  the police officers  are required to proceed. The note following Rule 23.4 enjoins a duty upon the police officer to construe the  rule   strictly  and   confine  the   entries  in   the surveillance register  to the  class of persons mentioned in the rule.  Similarly Rule  23.7 demands that there should be no  illegal  interference  in  the  guise  of  surveillance. Surveillance, therefore,  has to  be unobtrusive  and within bounds. [318E-H, 319A]      While it  may not be necessary to supply the grounds of belief to  the  persons  whose  names  are  entered  in  the surveillance register-it  may become necessary in some cases to satisfy  the Court  when an  entry is  challenged on  the ground that  there are  grounds to entertain such reasonable

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

belief. [319C-D]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 707-708 of 1980.      Appeals by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and Order dated 12-9-1978 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W. 2391 and 2392/78.      V.M. Tarkunde,  S. Bagga  and Mrs.  S.  Bagga  for  the Appellants.      M.S. Dhillon for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J.-To what  extent may  the citizen’s right to  be let  alone be invaded by the duty of the Police to prevent crime 313 is the  problem posed  in these two appeals by special leave under Art.  136 of  the Constitution.  The two  appeals  are directed against  the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana  dismissing   the  Writ   Petitions  filed   by  the appellants seeking  the removal  of  their  names  from  the surveillance  register  maintained  at  Police  Station  ’A’ Division,  Amritsar  City  and  for  a  direction  that  the respondent  Police   Officers  should   be  restrained  from harassing the  appellants by  calling  them  to  the  Police Station frequently without any justification. The appellants Malak Singh and Jaswant Singh are brothers and they claim to be engaged  in a business known as ’Continental Electricals’ besides owning  a hotel named Park Restaurant on Grand Trunk Road Amritsar. They state that they are Income-tax assessees and assert  that they  are law  abiding citizens. They claim that on account of their active political affiliation to the Akali party,  one  Prithipal  Singh  a  Congress  M.L.A.  is enimically disposed  towards them  and has been instrumental in having the appellants falsely implicated in some criminal cases. All  the criminal  cases ended either in acquittal or discharge. The  appellants were also detained under the MISA for sometime  but they  were released  from detention as the Advisory Board  refused  to  confirm  their  detention.  The appellants claim  that they took active part in exposing the corrupt activities  of the  Deputy Superintendent of Police, Amritsar and had even published wall posters with the result that the  Deputy Superintendent  of Police  had instituted a prosecution for  defamation against  the  appellants.  As  a measure of  humiliation and  harassment, the  names  of  the appellants  were   entered  in   the  surveillance  register maintained at the Police Station ’A’ Division, Amritsar. The appellants allege that their photographs have been displayed amongst those  of notorious  criminals and bad characters at the Police  Station. Whenever a Senior Police Officer visits the Police Station the appellants are required to attend the Police Station  alongwith  other  persons  whose  names  are entered  in   the  surveillance   register.  They  are  also needlessly  asked   to  associate  themselves  with  various investigations though  they have nothing whatever to do with those investigations. As, according to the appellants, there is no material whatsoever on the basis of which the names of the  appellants   could  be   entered  in  the  surveillance register, they  filed  Writ  Petitions  in  the  High  Court questioning the inclusion of their names in the surveillance register  and   also  praying  that  the  police  should  be restrained from harassing them by calling them to the Police Station without any justification.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

    In the  High Court, counter affidavits on behalf of the respondents were  filed  by  the  Senior  Superintendent  of Police, Amritsar, who 314 claimed  that   the  appellants  were  opium  smugglers  and habitual offenders  and receivers  of  stolen  property  and therefore, their  names were  entered  in  the  surveillance register. It was, however, denied that their photographs had been displayed  at the  Police Station.  It was pleaded that the reasons  for entering  their names  in the  surveillance register were  to be  found in the history sheets which were confidential documents  and which,  therefore, could  not be disclosed. It  was also  pleaded that  one of the appellants had been convicted in a criminal case but it transpires from the rejoinder  filed by  the appellants  that the conviction was  set  aside  on  appeal.  As  the  Writ  Petitions  were dismissed by  the High  Court, the appellants have preferred these two  appeals after  obtaining special  leave from this Court.      Shri V.M.  Tarkunde, learned  counsel, who  appeared as Amicus curiae  for the  appellants urged  that there were no grounds  on   the  basis  of  which  the  respondents  could entertain a  reasonable  belief  that  the  appellants  were habitual offenders  or  receivers  of  stolen  property  and therefore, there  was no  justification  for  including  the names of  the appellants  in the  surveillance register.  He further submitted  that an  order  for  surveillance  was  a serious encroachment  on the  liberty  of  the  citizen  and therefore, it was necessary that a person should be given an opportunity to  show cause  before his  name was included in the  surveillance  register.  As  this  was  not  done,  the inclusion of the names of the appellants in the register was bad. We  may add  that the  vires of the Punjab Police rules which provide for the maintenance of a surveillance register was not questioned before us.      Chapter 23  of  the  Punjab  Police  rules  deals  with prevention of  offences. Rule  23.4 which  provides for  the maintenance of  a  surveillance  register  in  every  Police Station is in the following terms:           "23.4 (1)  In every  police  station,  other  than      those of  the railway  police, a  Surveillance Register      shall be maintained in Form 23.4(1).           (2) In  part I  of such  register shall be entered      the  names  of  persons  commonly  resident  within  or      commonly frequenting  the  local  jurisdiction  of  the      police station  concerned, who belong to one or more of      the following classes:-           (a)  All persons  who have  been proclaimed  under                section 87,  Code of Criminal Procedure (s.82                of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973). 315           (b)  All released  convicts in  regard to  whom an                order under  section 565,  Criminal Procedure                Code, has  been made  (S. 356 of the Criminal                Procedure Code of 1973).           (c)  All convicts  the execution of whose sentence                is suspended  in the  whole, or  any part  of                whose   punishment    has    been    remitted                conditionally  under  section  401,  Criminal                Procedure  Code   (S.  432  of  the  Criminal                Procedure Code of 1973)           (d)  All  persons   restricted  under   Rules   of                Government  made  under  section  16  of  the                Restriction of  Habitual  Offenders  (Punjab)                Act, 1918.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

         (3)  In Part II of such register may be entered at      the discretion of the Superintendent-           (a)  persons who  have been  convicted  twice,  or                more than  twice, of  offences  mentioned  in                rule 27.29;           (b)  persons who  are reasonably  believed  to  be                habitual offenders  or  receivers  of  stolen                property whether  they have been convicted or                not;           (c)  persons under  security under sections 109 or                110, Code of Criminal Procedure;           (d)  convicts, released  before the  expiration of                their sentences  under the  Prisons  Act  and                Remission Rules without the imposition of any                conditions.      NOTE.-  This  rule  must  be  strictly  construed,  and      entries must  be  confined  to  the  names  of  persons      falling in the four classes named therein". Rule 23.5  provides that  the surveillance register shall be written up  by the  officer incharge  of the  Police Station personally or  by an  Assistant Sub  Inspector. No  entry in Part  II   is  to  be  made  except  by  the  order  of  the Superintendent of  Police and  no entry  in Part  I is to be made except  by the  order of a Gazetted Officer. It is also provided that ordinarily a history sheet shall be opened for a person  before his  name is  entered in  Part  II  of  the Surveillance Register.  If from  the entries  in the history sheet the  Superintendent is  of opinion  that  such  person should be  subjected to surveillance he shall enter his name in Part  II of the register. In the case of persons who have never  been   convicted  or  placed  on  security  for  good behaviour  their  names  shall  not  be  entered  until  the Superintendent has  recorded definite  reasons for doing so. The recording of reasons is to be treated as confidential. 316 Rule 23.7 prescribes that Police surveillance shall comprise such close  watch over  the movements  of the  person  under surveillance,  by   Police  Officers,  Village  headmen  and village watchmen  as may  be applicable  without any illegal interference.  Rule   23.8   provides   that   the   initial preparation of a history sheet is to be done with great care and invariably,  by  the  officer  incharge  of  the  Police Station  or  by  a  thoroughly  experienced  Sub  Inspector. Detailed provision  is made  in the Rules with regard to the preparation, maintenance and custody of history sheets. Rule 23.31  provides  that  all  records  connected  with  Police surveillance are  confidential and nothing contained in them may be  communicated to  any person  and that inspection may not be  allowed or copies given. The District Magistrate and the Ilaqa  Magistrate are,  however, entitled to examine the records in accordance with Rules 1.15 and 1.21.      As mentioned  by us,  earlier, the  vires of the Punjab Police Rules  which  provide  for  the  maintenance  of  the surveillance register was not questioned before us, perhaps, because of  Kharak Singh  v. State of U.P. & Ors. and Gobind v.  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh  &  Anr.  The  two  principal questions which  were  raised  for  our  consideration  were whether a  person was entitled to be given an opportunity to show cause  before his name was included in the surveillance register and  whether, in the instant case, their names were included in  the register without any grounds for reasonably believing them  to be  habitual offenders  or  receivers  of stolen property,  as required  by Rule  23.4  (3)  (b).  The second submission  was based  on the  circumstance that  the appellants have  not been  previously convicted or placed on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

security for  good behaviour  under Sec.  109 or 110 Code of Criminal Procedure  or proclaimed  as offenders.  So,  their names could  be entered in the surveillance register only if they fitted  into the category of persons who are reasonably believed to  be habitual  offenders or  receivers of  stolen property, whether they have been convicted of not".      Prevention of crime is one of the prime purposes of the constitution of  a police  force. The preamble to the Police Act 1861 says :           "Whereas it  is expedient to reorganise the police      and to  make it  a more  efficient instrument  for  the      prevention and detection of crime". Sec. 23  of the  Police Act  prescribes it  as the  duty  of police officers  "to collect  and  communicate  intelligence affecting the public peace, to pre 317 vent the  commission of  offences and  public nuisances". In connection with  these duties  it will  be necessary to keep discreet surveillance  over reputed bad characters, habitual offenders and  other potential  offenders.  Organised  crime cannot  be   successfully  fought  without  close  watch  of suspects. But,  surveillance may  be intrusive and it may so seriously encroach  on  the  privacy  of  a  citizen  as  to infringe  his   fundamental  right   to   personal   liberty guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution and the freedom of movement guaranteed  by  Art.  19(1)  (d).  That  cannot  be permitted. This  is recognised  by the  Punjab Police  Rules themselves.  Rule   23.7,  which   prescribes  the  mode  of surveillance,  permits   that  the   close  watch  over  the movements of  the person  under surveillance but without any illegal interference.  Permissible surveillance  is only  to the extent of a close watch over the movements of the person under surveillance  and no  more. So long as surveillance is for the  purpose of  preventing crime and is confined to the limits prescribed  by Rule  23.7 we  do not  think a  person whose name is included in the surveillance register can have a genuine  cause for  complaint. We  may  notice  here  that interference in  accordance with  law and for the prevention of disorder  and crime  is an  exception recognised  even by European Convention  of Human Rights to the right to respect for a  person’s private  and family  life.  Art.  8  of  the Convention reads as follows :           "(1) Everyone’s  right to  respect for his private      and family  life, his home and his correspondence shall      be recognised.           (2) There  shall be  no interference  by a  public      authority with  the exercise of this right, except such      as is  in accordance  with law  and is  necessary in  a      democratic  society   in  the   interests  of  national      security, public safety, for the prevention of disorder      and crime or for the protection of health or morals".      As we said, discreet surveillance of suspects, habitual and  potential  offenders,  may  be  necessary  and  so  the maintenance of  history sheet  and surveillance register may be necessary  too, for  the purpose  of prevention of crime. History sheets and surveillance registers have to be and are confidential documents.  Neither the  person whose  name  is entered in  the register  nor any other member of the public can have access to the surveillance register. The nature and character of the function involved in the making of an entry in the  surveillance register  is so  utterly administrative and non-judicial, that it is difficult to con- 318 ceive of  the application of the rule of audi altrem partem. Such  enquiry   as  may   be  made  has  necessarily  to  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

confidential and it appears to us to necessarily exclude the application of  that principle.  In fact  observance of  the principles of  natural justice may defeat the very object of the  rule   providing  for   surveillance.  There  is  every possibility of the ends of justice being defeated instead of being served. It was well observed in Re : K(Infants) :           "But a  principle  of  judicial  inquiry,  whether      fundamental or  not, is  only a  means to an end. If it      can be  shown in  any particular class of case that the      observance of  a principle  of this sort does not serve      the ends of justice, it must be dismissed; otherwise it      would become  the master  instead  of  the  servant  of      justice".      The entry in the surveillance register is to be made on the basis  of the  material provided  by the  history  sheet whose  contents,   by  their   very  nature   have   to   be confidential. It would be contrary to the public interest to reveal the  information in  the history  sheet, particularly the source  of information.  Revelation  of  the  source  of information  may   put  the   informant  in   jeopardy.  The observance of  the principle  of natural justice, apart from not serving the ends of justice may thus lead to undesirable results. We  accordingly held  that  the  rule  audi  altrem partem is not attracted.      But all  this does  not mean  that the  police  have  a licence to  enter the  names of whoever they like (dislike?) in the  surveillance register;  nor can  the surveillance be such as  to squeeze  the fundamental  freedoms guaranteed to all citizens  or to obstruct the free exercise and enjoyment of those freedoms; nor can the surveillance so intrude as to offend  the  dignity  of  the  individual.  Surveillance  of persons who  do not  fall within the categories mentioned in Rule 23.4  or for reasons unconnected with the prevention of crime, or  excessive surveillance  falling beyond the limits prescribed by  the rules,  will entitle  a  citizen  to  the Court’s protection  which the  court will  not  hesitate  to give. The  very rules  which prescribe  the  conditions  for making entries  in the surveillance register and the mode of surveillance appear  to recognise  the caution and care with which the  police officers are required to proceed. The note following R. 23.4 is instructive. It enjoins a duty upon the police officer to construe the rule strictly and confine the entries in the surveillance register to the class of persons mentioned in  the rule.  Similarly R.23.7 demands that there should be no illegal 319 interference in  the guise  of  surveillance.  Surveillance, therefore, has to be unobstrusive and within bounds.      Ordinarily the  names of persons with previous criminal record alone  are entered in the surveillance register. They must be  proclaimed offenders, previous convicts, or persons who have already been placed on security for good behaviour. In addition, names of persons who are reasonably believed to be  habitual  offenders  or  receivers  of  stolen  property whether they  have been  convicted or not may be entered. It is only  in the  case of this category of persons that there may be occasion for abuse of the power of the police officer to make entries in the surveillance register. But, here, the entry can only be made by the order of the Superintendent of Police who is prohibited from delegating his authority under Rule 23.5.  Further it  is necessary that the Superintendent of Police  must entertain  a reasonable  belief that persons whose names  are to  be entered  in  Part  II  are  habitual offenders or  receivers of stolen property. While it may not be necessary  to supply the grounds of belief to the persons

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

whose names  are entered in the surveillance register it may become necessary  in some cases to satisfy the Court when an entry is challenged that there are grounds to entertain such reasonable belief.  In fact  in the present case we sent for the relevant  records and  we have  satisfied ourselves that there were  sufficient grounds  for  the  Superintendent  of Police to  entertain a  reasonable belief.  In the result we reject  both   the  appeals   subject  to  our  observations regarding the  mode of surveillance. There is no order as to costs. S.R.                                       Appeal dismissed. 320