Arbitrarily Labelling Individuals As Habitual Offenders Not Only Taints Them But Also Impairs Their Fundamental Rights: J&K High Court
Quashing the police action of branding a Jammu resident as a history-sheeter and entering his name in the Surveillance Register the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has underscored that the arbitrary labeling of individuals as habitual offenders without due process not only taints their image but also impairs their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.“If the...
Quashing the police action of branding a Jammu resident as a history-sheeter and entering his name in the Surveillance Register the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has underscored that the arbitrary labeling of individuals as habitual offenders without due process not only taints their image but also impairs their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“If the officer, mechanically under the guise of prevention of crime and to protect others, open or extend history sheets, which has an impact on the right of privacy of not only the individual against whom the order is passed, but also causes harm to other person‟s rights… there is every likelihood of damage being caused to his family and it cannot be lost sight of. Innocent children of such persons could be even looked down”, a bench of Justice M.A Chowdhary remarked.
Spotlighting these consequences that such an action may entail the court accentuated,
“Therefore, opening or retention of history sheets, which interferes with the right of privacy of a person, should be done strictly, adhering to parameters inbuilt in the police rules, keeping in mind the object sought to be achieved. Moreover, entry in Surveillance Register can be made, nonetheless after hearing objections of such a person and not arbitrarily by the Police officers”.
Background:
The case arose when the petitioner, Imran Khan, approached the court to challenge his inclusion in the Surveillance Register No. 10 and the subsequent opening of a history sheet against him by the police. Imran, who was acquitted in several criminal cases dating back to 2002, alleged that the police's actions were arbitrary and without proper justification.
The petitioner contended that his arms license, issued in 2007, was cancelled without any new charges being framed against him. When Imran inquired about the cancellation, he was informed that he was labeled a “history-sheeter” and placed under police surveillance despite his acquittal in all but one case.
The petitioner, represented by senior advocate P.N. Raina, argued that the surveillance and cancellation of his gun license were unwarranted given his acquittals. It was submitted that labeling a person as a history-sheeter has severe social consequences and should not be done arbitrarily.
The respondents, represented by Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli, countered that the petitioner had a history of involvement in criminal activities, necessitating surveillance to prevent further offenses. They argued that despite the acquittals, the petitioner's previous conduct justified the police's preventive actions.
Court Observations:
The court, in its detailed judgment, highlighted several critical principles governing the use of police surveillance and the labeling of individuals as habitual offenders:
Emphasising the right to be heard the court said that the exercise to enter the name of any person in the Surveillance Register cannot be a unilateral and arbitrary exercise and such a person is to be heard before undertaking it.
The court observed that police discretion must be exercised according to the rules of reason and justice, not private opinion, and must be legal, regular, and reasonable and criticized the police for failing to issue any show-cause notice or offer Imran Khan an opportunity to contest his classification as a history-sheeter.
Pointing out the violation of rules and procedures in the instant case the court found that the history sheet was opened against the petitioner without adhering to the procedure laid down in the J&K Police Rules, 1960. It noted that there was no material to justify his inclusion in the surveillance register, as required by law.
“Respondents have failed to substantiate that they had issued any show cause notice (SCN) to the petitioner, which they ought to have done, in view of the statutory requirement as per the Rules. They have also failed to point out, as to how, the name of petitioner was entered, particularly when such an entry can be made only of such a person, who qualifies in terms of Rule 698 of J&K Police Rules”, the court recorded.
Stressing that the actions of the police should align with the constitutional mandate of dignity and privacy under Article 21 the court said,
“It should be noted that at the time of opening a history sheet, the individual is not informed of a decision taken by the authorities behind his back and that the information collected is discreet. Needless to say that every person wants to live with dignity and he/she cannot be condemned arbitrarily”
Given the lack of procedural fairness, the court declared the actions of the police illegal. It ordered the removal of Imran Khan's name from the Surveillance Register and quashed the history sheet maintained by the police.
Case Title: Imran Khan Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 294