Police Must Limit Surveillance Register Entries To Respect Citizen's Privacy, Fundamental Rights: J&K High Court

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani added that surveillance must not intrude to compromise individual dignity and the rules governing Surveillance Register entries and surveillance methods should acknowledge the caution and care required by police officers in these procedures.

"Though organized crime cannot be successfully fought without close watch of suspects, yet surveillance may be intrusive and may seriously encroach on the privacy of a citizen, infringe his/her fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the freedom of movement guaranteed under Article 19(I) (d) of the Constitution, therefore, enjoining a duty upon the police officer to construe the rule strictly and confine the entries in the Surveillance Register un-obstrusive and within bounds without squeezing the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to a citizens or to obstruct the free exercise and enjoyment of those freedoms also keeping in mind that the surveillance should not be so intrude as to offend the dignity of an individual and that the very rules which prescribe the conditions for making entries in the Surveillance Register and the mode of surveillance must recognize the caution and care with which the police officers are required to proceed," the order stated.

The case revolved around the petitioner, an A-Class Contractor registered with the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, who sought relief against the inclusion of his name in the Surveillance Register No. 10, maintained by the police station in Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.

The petitioner had invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the removal of his name from the Surveillance Register and the quashing of the history sheet under the Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules 1960.

The petitioner submitted that he came to be implicated in an FIR in 2009 under sections 302/34/201/120-B RPC and 3/25/27 Arms Act, however, the Sessions court acquitted him and dismissed the charge sheet in 2020, yet his name continued to remain in the Surveillance Register.

Referring to the relevant provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules 1960, particularly Rule 698, which deals with Surveillance Register No. 10 the court emphasized the importance of maintaining a balance between surveillance for preventing crime and respecting an individual's right to privacy and personal liberty.

Deliberating further on the matter Justice Wani highlighted Rule 699, which governs entries in and cancellations from the Surveillance Register and emphasised that entries should be made based on verifiable facts and not merely assumptions or personal opinions. While citing Rule 702, the court also underscored the meticulous preparation required for a History Sheet, ensuring that it remains an objective and factual account.

“A perusal of the aforesaid rules ex facie suggest that the entries in the Surveillance Register have to be prepared and drawn both objectively meaning making an unbiased balanced observation based on facts which can be verified and subjectively as well meaning making assumptions, interpretations based on personal opinions without any verifiable facts”, the court explained.

Drawing support from "Malak Singh & Ors. Vs. State of P&H & Ors 1981," the court reiterated that while organized crime necessitates surveillance, it should not encroach upon the privacy and fundamental rights of citizens.

“..the surveillance should not be so intrude as to offend the dignity of an individual and that the very rules which prescribe the conditions for making entries in the Surveillance Register and the mode of surveillance must recognize the caution and care with which the police officers are required to proceed”, the court maintained.

Noting that the petitioner's name was initially entered into Surveillance Register Part II of Rule 698 due to his involvement in FIR No. 247/2009, dated 05.02.2009 and the petitioner was acquitted in this case by a competent court on 10.08.2020, the court said that the continuation of the entry of the name of the petitioner in the Surveillance Register seemingly is being continued by the respondents without drawing any subjective satisfaction in this regard mechanically being a person reasonably believed to be habitual offender.

“No reasons muchless cogent and credible have been recorded in the Surveillance Register for continuing the name of the petitioner therein on a mere belief without drawing any subjective satisfaction of possessing a reasonable belief that the petitioner is a habitual offender or is a person habitually addicted to crime thus necessitating to continuation of entering of his name in the Surveillance Register”, the court recorded.

Terming the continuous entry of the petitioner's name in the Surveillance Register as arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable, and illegal the respondents were directed to discontinue the entry of the petitioner's name in the Surveillance Register.

Case Title: Jagar Singh Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 291

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment