[Surveillance Register] Mere Acquittal Not Sufficient For SP To Believe That Registered Person Is Not Habitual Offender: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that for purpose of a "survelliance register," the mere acquittal of a person is not enough for the Superintendent of Police to have a reasonable belief with respect to the person being a habitual offender or not.

A surveillance register is a record maintained at the police station to monitor habitual offenders residing within the jurisdiction and certain categories of accused persons for the purpose of maintaining law and order.

Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj said, "Conviction and acquittal of a person would entail certain rights and liberties, however, maintenance of surveillance register for maintenance of law and order has to be seen from a different perspective."

The Court observed that the requirement  Rule 24.3 (3) (b) of the Punjab Police Rules, "is not relatable to the final outcome of the proceedings initiated and/for registration of cases. The requirement prescribed thereunder is a 'reasonable belief' of a person to be a habitual offender."

It further added that High Court does not substitute its satisfaction or reasonable belief for that of the concerned Superintendent of Police. The officer at the administrative level is best situated to judge and determine his priorities for maintenance of law and order.

Justice Bhardwaj was hearing plea seeking directions to the police to to remove the name of the petitioner as a Bad Character from Code-B after closing the history sheet and also from the surveillance register maintained by the police.

The counsel for the petitioner, Kailash Chand Soni submitted that various false FIRs had been registered against the petitioner on account of political rivalry and that he already stands acquitted in the said FIRs that were registered against him.

The police has however still incorporated the name of the petitioner in the Surveillance register notwithstanding the acquittal/discharge of the petitioner in the said FIRs, he added.

After hearing the submissions, the Court said that, "The object behind maintenance of surveillance register resolves around public safety and society by monitoring individuals who are suspected of involvement in criminal activities or suspicious behaviour or poses a risk to public order."

The same is thus a data record which Police may refer to for crime prevention, crime investigation, maintenance of law and order and even for security of State, it added.

The Court clarified, "a person may request deletion of name from such register if the information recorded for updating his name on surveillance register is inaccurate; outdated or is without any legal basis. Besides these may also be an issue of right to providing of an information on surveillance register infringes privacy."

At times a limitation may also be provided for retaining a name on such register and a name has to be deleted after such period unless the person engages himself in any other criminal offence or suspicious activity, said the judge.

The Court noted that  in the present case, undisputedly the petitioner has had criminal antecedents as per police record, including as late as in the year 2023. "The information furnished about criminal cases is not disputed or denied and there is no such information updated as would amount to infringement of right to privacy."

It is also not the case of the petitioner that the procedure required in law has not been followed in keeping the name of the petitioner on the surveillance register, it said.

Justice Bhardwaj highlighted that for the larger Public Welfare, need for peace and order may require police to keep a tab on some people. Such surveillance registers are usually restricted access documents for aiding the law enforcement agencies only.

"The same not being a document in public domain, it has very little social impact on reputation of an individual,"it said.

Referring to the Punjab Police Rule, the Court said, "It is also apparent that as per Rule 23.4 (3) (b) empowers the Superintendent of Police in a given district to enter name of any person at his discretion in such a register if he reasonably believes that he is a habitual offender."

The Court added that a mere acquittal of a person is not sufficient to hold that the Superintendent of Police cannot believe or have a reasonable relief with respect to a person being a habitual offender or not.

Perusing the reply filed by the State, the judge stated that it has "remained uncontroverted that the petitioner is involved in as many as 22 cases."

"It cannot thus, outrightly be said that the Superintendent of Police does not have any reasonable apprehension of the petitioner being a habitual offender and that any such decision is at the discretion of the Superintendent of Police to keep the name of the petitioner in the surveillance register would be bereft of any merit," the judge opined.

The Court noted that even though there may have been some merit for seeking deletion of same when petitioner approached the Court earlier as there were no criminal antecedents for nearly one and a half decade before that "but registration of two criminal cases in four years between 2019 to 2023 cannot be ignored by this Court."

On the contention that the cases registered are politically motivated, the Court said, "it would be uncalled for to comment on those cases or to hold them to be bad or politically motivated."

The judge opined that the, "Court not being equipped or being responsible for primarily maintaining law and order, some administrative discretion and play needs to be vested with the ground authorities to enable them to do their job well."

While noting that there is no allegation of any institutional malice of bias, the Court dismissed the plea.

Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the petitioner.

Pankaj Mulwani, DAG., Haryana.

Title: Kailash Chand Soni v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 137

Click here to read/download the order