Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
A petition was filed in the Telangana High Court by a rowdy sheeter wherein it was submitted that frequent late-night visits by police officials at his residence were violative of his right to privacy.
The petitioner had submitted that the police officials paid frequent visits to his residence at night and have caused him great disturbance by knocking the door or ringing his doorbell at midnight. Therefore, he claimed that such disturbance is violative of his fundamental right to life and liberty as provided under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In response to the petitioner’s submission, the respondent submitted that the petitioner is a rowdy sheeter and that a rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner. They further submitted that the frequent visits made to the petitioner’s residence was being done solely for the purpose of surveilling the actions of the petitioner to ensure no further crime is committed in order to maintain peace and order in the community.
Noting the submissions of the parties, the court referred to the Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Order 601, clause A, wherein it is stated that where a person is a habitual offender and has at numerous occasions caused disturbance to public order, a rowdy sheet may be opened in order to keep a watch on their activities. Observing the petitioner’s claim of violation of constitutional right, the court observed that Article 21 of the Constitution included within it a right to lead a dignified life and stated that constant surveillance of an individual violated the person’s right to privacy which falls within the scope of Article 21. In addition, the court stated that in cases where public security is at stake, such surveillance is allowed, however, it must be done so with great care and caution so as to avoid infringing one’s fundamental right.
In the present case, recording that the frequent visits by the inspectors involved knocking and ringing the doorbell of the petitioner late at night, the court held that such actions amount to disturbance, offending the petitioner’s right to privacy. The court further directed the respondents to make warranted visits to the residence strictly during the day time and to ensure the surveillance is not excessively obtrusive or intrusive.
86540
103860
630
114
59824