{"id":93920,"date":"2008-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008"},"modified":"2014-08-24T14:16:04","modified_gmt":"2014-08-24T08:46:04","slug":"s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"S.Vani vs The Superintendent Of Police on 15 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S.Vani vs The Superintendent Of Police on 15 September, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 15\/09\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD)No.2286 of 2005\nW.P.(MD)Nos.2408 and 5378 of 2005\nand\nM.P.No.2314 of 2005 in W.P.(MD)No.2286 of 2005\nand\nM.P.No.5854 of 2005 in W.P.(MD)No.5378 of 2005\n\t\t\t\t\t\nW.P.(MD).No.5378 of 2005\n\nS.Vani\t\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nVs.\t\n\n1.The Superintendent of Police,\n  Sivagangai District.\n\n2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,\n  Sivagangai District,\n  Sivagangai.\n\n3.The Inspector of Police,\n  Tiruppathur Town Police Station,\n  Tiruppathur,\n  Sivagangai District.\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\n\nW.P.(MD).No.2286 of 2005\n\n#Ganesan\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nVs.\t\n\n$1.The Station House Officer,\n  Ayyampettai Police Station,\n  Thanjavur District.\n\n2.The Superintendent of Police,\n  Thanjavur,\n  Thanjavur District.\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\nW.P.(MD).No.2408 of 2005\n\n#E.S.V.Pandian\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioner in WP No.2408\/05\n\nVs.\t\n\n$1.The Superintendent of Police,\n  Thirunelveli District,\n  Thirunelveli.\n\n2.The Sub-Inspector of Police,\n  Manur Police Station,\n  Manur,\n  Thirunelveli District.\n\n3.Syed Nizar Ahamed (42)\n  S.P.C.I.D. Police Station,\n  Manur,\n  Thirunelveli District.\n\n4.Balamurugan\n  Sub-Inspector of Police,\n  Natham,\n  Dindigul District.\n\n5.Mohamed Ikbal\n  Deputy Superintendent of POlice,\n  Kolatchal,\n  Kanyakumari District.\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\nPRAYER in WP No.2286\/05\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the\nConstitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of mandamus, directing the\nrespondents to remove the name of the petitioner from the Rowdy History Sheets\nSerial No.20 on the file of the Ayyampettai Police Station, Thanjavur District.\n\nPRAYER in WP No.2408\/05\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the\nConstitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorified Mandamus\nand call for the file and proceedings relating to the rowdy list number 693,\nManur Police Station or any other number in that Police Station including the\nname of the petition in the Rowdy list, quash the same and direct the\nrespondents 1 and 2 to pay a of Rs.3,00,000\/- (Rupees three lakhs) as damages to\nthird respondent petitioner and recover the same from the salary of respondents\n3 to 5 issue further.\n\nPRAYER in WP No.5378\/05\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the\nConstitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of mandamus, directing the\nrespondents to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for having\npublished the petitioners photograph in the habitual offenders list.\t\n\n!For Petitioner   \t...Mr.M.Karunanithi\n\t\t\t   (in WP No.2286\/05)\n\t\t\t...Mr.T.S.R.Venkatramana\n\t\t\t   (in WP No.2408\/05)\n\t\t\t...Mr.Mahendrapathy\n\t\t\t   (in WP No.5378\/05)\n^For Respondents\t...Mr.K.A.Thirumalaiappan\n(in all W.Ps)\t\t   Addl.Govt.Pleader\n\n\t\t\t\t\t******\n<\/pre>\n
:COMMON ORDER
\n******
\n\tIn all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have raised questions of far-
\nreaching importance, namely, the rights of citizens of India to lead a free life
\nsubject to social control imposed by valid law.\tThe question raised in all these
\nWrit Petitions at the instance of the alleged dis-reputable characters cannot be
\nallowed to deflect the perspective of this Court. If the police do what they did
\nto these petitioners, they can also do the same to the honest and law abiding
\ncitizens.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.\tThe common thread in all these three Writ Petitions are that the
\nactions taken by the respective Station House Officers in opening History Sheets
\nin the name of the petitioners, mechanically counter signed by the respective
\nSuperior Police Officers is justified.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.\tIn W.P.(MD)No.5378 of 2008, the unfortunate victim was a woman, who
\nseeks for a compensation of Rupees Two Lakhs for having published her
\nphotographs in the habitual offenders list. The Writ Petition was admitted on
\n23.06.2005.  Though a counter affidavit was filed by the Inspector of Police,
\nTiruppattur Town Police Station, during the month of July, 2005,  the matter was
\nnot listed for quite some time.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.\tWhen the matter came up for final hearing on 13.08.2008, this Court
\ndirected the third respondent to produce the connected file for opening of the
\nHistory Sheets in the name of the petitioner.  Since the same was not forth
\ncoming, on 29.08.2008, this Court directed the Inspector of Police to appear
\nalong with the records before this Court on 08.09.2008.  Accordingly, he
\nappeared before this Court and produced the original file.\tAfter hearing both
\nthe parties, the matter was reserved for orders on 08.09.2008.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.\tIn W.P.No.2286 of 2005, the petitioner was an elected Panchayat
\nPresident of Soolamangalam Village.  It is stated that he belonged to the DMK
\nParty and due to animosity, the Inspector of Police,  Ayyampettai Police
\nStation, Thanjavur District, foisted a criminal case against the petitioner.
\nUtilising that opportunity, the Inspector of Police included the name of the
\npetitioner in a History Sheet maintained for rowdies in that P.S.area.  He had
\nchallenged the said inclusion and sought for removal of his name from the list.
\n\t The Writ Petition was admitted on 23.03.2005. A counter affidavit was
\nfiled by the Inspector of Police, Ayyampettai Police Station on 09.06.2005.
\nHowever, the matter was not taken up for hearing for quite some time.  When the
\nmatter came up on 06.09.2008, the said Inspector of Police was directed to
\nappear along with records relating to the petitioner on 11.09.2008.
\nAccordingly, the said Inspector of Police had appeared before this Court on
\n11.09.2008 and produced the original file. After hearing both sides, the matter
\nwas reserved for orders on 11.09.2008.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.\tIn W.P.No.2408 of 2008, the Writ Petition is filed by one
\nE.S.V.Pandiyan seeking for a compensation of Rupees Three Lakhs as damages from
\nthe respondents for having included the petitioner name as rowdy in the History
\nSheets in the Manur Police Station by the Sub-inspector of Police,  by name
\nBalamurugan.  He has also made the Deputy Superintendent of Police in his
\nindividual capacity as a party, fifth respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.\tThe grievance of the petitioner in this case was that he is a
\ngraduate with B.A.degree and was an active member of the Indian National
\nCongress.  Since he questioned certain activities of the Sub-Inspector of
\nPolice, in not accounting for the entire stolen jewellery on behalf of another
\nvillage, he became inimical towards him.  In order to damage the reputation of
\nthe petitioner, he included his name in the rowdy list of the Manur Police
\nStation, Tirunelveli District.\tThe Writ Petition was admitted on
\n28.03.2005.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.\tInspite of the several adjournments, till date no counter affidavit
\nhas been filed by the respondents.  Therefore, when the matter came up for
\nhearing on 06.09.2008, this Court directed the Inspector of Police of Manur to
\nappear before this Court along with the records on 11.09.2008.  Accordingly, he
\nhad appeared before this Court and produced the original file.\tAfter hearing
\nboth sides, the matter was reserved for orders on 11.09.2008. In view of the
\ncommon question raised in all these three Writ Petitions, a common order is
\nbeing passed.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.\tCase of Ms.S.Vani:-\n<\/p>\n
10.1. In the case of Ms.S.Vani (W.P.No.5378 of 2005), the petitioner was put up
\nat Akilmanai street, Tiruppattur (Post), Sivagangai District.  She belonged to
\nYadava Community.  A criminal case was registered against the petitioner at
\nTiruppattur Police Station in Crime No.214 of 2001 under Section 380 IPC on the
\nbasis of a alleged confession statement given by the accused.  The petitioner
\nwas also charge sheeted.\n<\/p>\n
10.2.\tSubsequently, the third respondent, the Inspector of Police, Tiruppattur
\nTown Police Station  opened a History Sheet with history No.654 of 2004 on
\n23.11.2004.  Her photograph was also taken and kept in the files.  The History
\nSheet that was opened was under the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order 746 in Part
\nV Form No.111.  The criminal case was taken on file in C.C.No.282 of 2002 on the
\nfile of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppattur.  Even though, the petitioner was
\npresent at most of the hearings, the case got delayed for one reason or other.
\nThe petitioner had appeared for 61 out of 64 adjournments and the case was not
\nconducted in all earnestness.\n<\/p>\n
10.3.\tThis forced the petitioner to file a Criminal Original Petition before
\nthis Court in Crl.O.P.No.3610 of 2006 for an early hearing of the criminal case
\nby the Judicial Magistrate. This Court, by an order dated 15.12.2004, directed
\nthe Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppattur to complete the trial and dispose of the
\nC.C.No.282 of 2002 as expeditiously as possible. Notwithstanding the same, the
\ncriminal case was continued. It is now stated that the petitioner was acquitted
\nfinally on 30.09.2007.\n<\/p>\n
10.4.\tIt is seen from the records that notwithstanding the acquittal, her name
\ncontinues to be kept in the record with periodical entries made by the third
\nrespondent. The original file shows that the History Sheets was opened and was
\ncounter signed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.  The note put up for
\nopening  the History Sheets stated that the petitioner might have done similar
\nthefts. she is always found fashionably dressed without any income and
\ntherefore, her activities should be watched.  It is also stated that she is
\nhaving bad conduct and she is unmarried.\n<\/p>\n
10.5.\tRight from the noting dated 21.01.2005, it was written that she is working
\nin an Automobile Company, at Madurai but her activities are not satisfactory. It
\nis seen from the records that the same entry was mechanically repeated month
\nafter month.  In the entry dated 31.12.2006, it is stated by the Sub-inspector
\nof Police that she was living with her mother and she is still unmarried.  But
\nshe is working in a Plastic Company at Madurai and she had applied for a part-
\ntime studies; but her conduct was not satisfactory.\n<\/p>\n
10.6.\tFor those entries, without any basis, the Deputy Superintendent of Police
\nhad been counter singed year after year.  In all those entries, it is noted that
\nshe was unmarried and she was having bad conduct. But she was found working in
\nan Automobile company at Madurai and she was living with her family, who are
\ndoing milk business.\n<\/p>\n
10.7.\tEven after her acquittal by the Criminal Court as early as on 30.09.2007,
\nthe Inspector of Police continued to retain her name in the History Sheets.
\nShockingly, even on 30.09.2007, a note was put up to continue her name under the
\nsurveillance list for one more year.\n<\/p>\n
10.8.\tA perusal of the original file clearly shows that there was no basis for
\nopening a History Sheets in the name of the petitioner and for making such
\nentries there was no factual basis.\n<\/p>\n
10.9.\tIt is stated in the counter affidavit that all precautionary steps were
\ntaken in terms of P.S.O.746(I).  In paragraph No.6, it is averred as follows:-
\n\t“…Only to make awareness among the people about the criminals for
\nprecaution, the suspect sheets against such criminals are being opened and kept
\nan eye on those criminals to avoid further commission of crimes”.
\nIt is also surprising that the third respondent could use terminologies like
\n“unmarried woman” “having bad character” and her conduct was not satisfactory.
\nExcepting for foisted criminal case against the petitioner, in which she was
\nalso subsequently acquitted by the Criminal Court, there is no factual basis for
\nopening such a file in favour of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
11.Case of Ganesan:-\n<\/p>\n
11.1.  In the case of Ganesan (W.P.No.2286 of 2005), the petitioner belonged to
\nScheduled Caste Community. In his case, a history sheet was opened by the
\nInspector of Police, Ayyampettai Police Station on 12.11.2004 stating that a
\ncase was registered in Crime No.293 of 2004 under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 307
\nIPC read with Section 3(1) of the PPD Act.  It was stated that he had created
\ncaste conflict and therefore, a History Sheets was opened in his name.  In this
\ncase, the counter signature was done mechanically by the Deputy Superintendent
\nof Police, Papanasam.  Even the office seal of the said officer was not found.
\n11.2.  Under his signature, in the periodical notings found in the file shows
\nthat he was working as an agricultural labourer.  In every endorsement, it is
\nstated that he is doing coolie work and he is behaving properly.  In fact, ever
\nsince he got elected as a Panchayat President, the notings had undergone
\ndramatic change and it was stated that he was behaving well, yet he must be
\nconstantly kept under the surveilance list.  Even after he became a Panchayat
\nPresident under a DMK ticket, extension was sought for one year for keeping him
\nunder the surveilance list.  As late as 01.01.2008, the request for extending
\nhis name the list for one more year was granted by the Deputy Superintendent of
\nPolice, Papanasam. In the counter affidavit filed dated Nil June 2005, it is
\nstated that the petitioner was the 27th accused in Criminal No.293 of 2004 and
\nhe was found always in an intoxicated mood creating hardships to the residents
\nof the village.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. Case of E.S.V.Pandian
\n12.1.In the case of Mr.E.S.V.Pandiyan (W.P.No.2408 of 2004) the petitioner
\nbelonged to Maravar Community. He is a resident of Manur Village, Tirunelveli
\nDistrict. In this case, a History Sheets was opened under the orders of the
\nDeputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli (Rural), on 16.06.2003.  It was
\nstated that at the time of opening of the history sheet a criminal case was
\npending against the petitioner.  Right from 17.08.2003, periodical endorsements
\nwere made in the file.\n<\/p>\n
12.2.In all the endorsements, it is stated that he does not have a job, but
\nroaming around in a white shirt and white dhoti.  It is also stated that no
\ncomplaint had come against him.  It is unthinkable as to how the police could
\ntake exception to the petitioner wearing white shirt and white dhoti; but that
\nseems to be the theme running through every endorsement.  Each time, the higher
\nofficials, namely, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli (Rural),
\nrecommended extension of surveillance over him.\n<\/p>\n
12.3.But from the endorsement dated 30.04.2008 onwards, it is shown that he is
\nworking as a collie.  It is seen from the representation made by the petitioner
\nto the District Collector that he was a B.A.Graduate and was a member of the
\nIndian National Congress Party. Since he questioned about the stolen properties
\nwere not being accounted for in the Criminal Court on behalf of the villager, a
\nHistory Sheets was opened in his name due to mala fide motives.
\n12.4.The allegations made by the petitioner were not denied by the respondents.
\nIn any event, the file notings showed that the police was very much aggrieved
\nabout the attire worn by the petitioner and his not having a job.  It is not
\nclear as to how these issues can be a ground to continue the petitioner’s name
\nunder the surveilance list.  If these were the yardstick for keeping a name in a
\nHistory Sheet, then many in the Political field will find their names included
\nin such lists.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.\tThe facts so far narrated clearly shows that in none of the cases,
\nthere has been any material basis for opening history sheet and there existed
\nsituations warranting opening of such history sheets.  All the three petitioners
\nwere not convicted by any Criminal Court and there was only a case pending. In
\none case, the petitioner in W.P.NO.5378 of 2005 was acquitted. In the second
\ncase, the petitioner was on bail and he was also an elected Panchayat President.
\nThe notings in the files relating to the second and the third petitioners,
\nnoting were made periodically by the respondents stating that their conduct was
\nnot blameworthy.  In the case of the first petitioner Ms.Vani, an endorsement
\nstating that she is a unmarried woman, living with her parents and working in an
\nAutomobile Company, at Madurai but she was having bad character.  There was not
\neven an iota of material to support such remark found in the file.  Either it
\nshows the subjective opinion of the Station House Officer or that it shows their
\nclear animus towards the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.\tTherefore, the submissions of the learned counsel for the
\npetitioners that the very act of opening of History Sheets were without any
\njurisdiction and at times, it was made to settle personal scores.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.\tIn the second and third case, history sheets were opened when the
\ntwo petitioners were in opposition political parties and when those political
\nparties became ruling parties and governing both at the State and Centre, the
\nfile notings undergone sea change. But, yet, the continuance of surveillance did
\nnot cease.  All these will show that the respondents hardly had any regard for
\nthe privacy of any individual and notes were made without scruples in such
\nhistory sheets.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.\tIn the above factual matrix, it is necessary to refer the PSO 746 of
\nTamil Nadu Police Standing Orders providing power for opening history sheets and
\nit reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“PSO 746. Part-IV – History Sheetss.\n<\/p>\n
\t(1) Part V (Form No.111) shall contain the History Sheetss of the persons
\nresident permanently or temporarily in their Station limits who are known or
\nbelieved to be addicted to or to aid and abet the commission of crime, whether
\nconvicted or not, or who are believed to be habitual receivers.”\n<\/p>\n
\t17.\tIt is pertinent to point out that opening of History Sheets,
\nsurveillance list and domicilary visits came to be considered by the Supreme
\nCourt in several decisions. In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and others<\/a>, in
\nthat, a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court vide its decision reported in  AIR
\n1963 Supreme Court 1295 struck down a regulation authorising domicilary visits
\nto the houses of suspect individuals as unconstitutional.  In the majority
\nopinion in paras:14 and 18, it was observed as follows:-
\n\tPara:14\t“The question that has next to be considered is whether the
\nintrusion into the residence of a citizen and the knocking at his door with the
\ndisturbance to his sleep and ordinary comfort which such action must necessarily
\ninvolve, constitute a violation of the freedom guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(d) or “a
\ndeprivation” of the “personal liberty” guaranteed by Art. 21.  Taking first
\nArt.19(1)(d) the “freedom” here guaranteed is a right “to move freely”
\nthroughout the territory of India.  Omitting as immaterial for the present
\npurpose the last words defining the geographical area of the guaranteed
\nmovement, we agree that the right of “move” denotes nothing more than a right of
\nlocomotion, and that in the context the adverb “freely” would only connote that
\nthe freedom to move is without restriction and is absolute, i.e., to move
\nwherever one likes, whenever one likes and however one likes subject to any
\nvalid law enacted or made under cl. (5).  It is manifest that by the knock at
\nthe door, or by the man being roused form his sleep, his locomotion is not
\nimpleaded or prejudiced in any manner.  Learned Counsel suggested that the
\nknowledge or apprehension that the police were on the watch for the movements of
\nthe suspect, might induce a psychological inhibition against his movements but,
\nas already pointed out, we are unable to accept the argument that for this
\nreason there is an impairment of the “free” movement guaranteed by sub-cl.(d).
\nWe are not persuaded that Counsel is right in the suggestion that this would
\nhave any effect of diverting or impeding his movement, we are clear that the
\nfreedom guaranteed by Art.19(1)(d) has reference to something tangible and
\nphysical rather and not to the imponderable effect on the mind of a person which
\nmight guide his action in the matter of his movement or locomotion.
\n\t….\n<\/p>\n
\tPara 18. “It is true that in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court from
\nwhich we have made these extracts, the Court had to consider also the impact of
\na violation of the Fourth Amendment which reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
\nand effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated;
\nand no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
\naffirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched,  and the
\npersons or things to be seized”\n<\/p>\n
and that our Constitution does not in terms confer any like constitutional
\nguarantee.  Nevertheless, these extracts would show that an unauthorised
\nintrusion into a person’s home and the disturbance caused to him thereby, is as
\nit were the violation of a common law right of a man – an ultimate essential of
\nordered liberty, if not of the very concept of civilisation.  An English Common
\nLaw maxim asserts that “every man’s house is his castle and in Semayne’s case,
\n(1604) 5 Co Rep 91a : 1 Sm.L.C.(13th Edn.) 104 at p. 105 where this was applied,
\nit was stated that “the house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress
\nas well as for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose.”  We
\nare not unmindful of the fact that Semayne’s case (1604) 5 Co Rep 91a : 1 Sm
\nL.C.(13th Edn.) 104 at p 105 was concerned with the law relating to executions
\nin England, but the passage extracted has a validity quite apart from the
\ncontext of the particular decision.  It embodies an abiding principle which
\ntranscends mere protection of property rights and expounds a concept of
\n“personal liberty” which does not rest on any element of feudalism or on any
\ntheory of freedom which has ceased to be of value.”\n<\/p>\n
\t18.\tIn Gobind V. State of Madhya Pradesh and<\/a> another (1975) 2 Supreme
\nCourt Cases 148, the Supreme Court upheld the regulations 855 and 856 of the
\nMadhya Pradesh Police Regulations providing for surveillance.  In paragraph
\nnos.28 and 29, of the Supreme Court struck a note of caution, which is as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
\tPara 28. “The right to privacy in any event will necessarily have to go
\nthrough a process of case-by-case development.  Therefore, even assuming that
\nthe right to personal liberty, the right to move freely throughout the territory
\nof India and the freedom of speech create an independent right of privacy as an
\nemanation from them which one can characterize as a fundamental right, we do not
\nthink that the right is absolute.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t…….\n<\/p>\n
\tPara 30: “…….\tOur founding fathers were thoroughly opposed to a Police
\nRaj even as our history of the struggle for freedom has borne eloquent testimony
\nto it.  The relevant Articles of the Constitution we have adverted to earlier,
\nbehove us therefore to narrow down the scope for play of the two regulations.
\nWe proceed to give direction and restriction to the application of the said
\nregulations with the caveat that if any action were taken beyond the boundaries
\nso set, the citizen will be entitled to attack such action as unconstitutional
\nand void.”“<\/p>\n
\t19.\tIn Malak Singh and others V. State of P & H and others reported in
\n(1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 420, the  Supreme Court while holding that entry
\nfor surveillance register should be made on the basis of the materials, though
\nthey may be kept as a confidential document and it does not require observance
\nof Principles of Natural Justice before opening the history sheet, in para nos.9
\nand 10 of the said judgment, the Court provided for judicial review over illegal
\nactions and those passages may be usefully extracted below:-
\n\tPara.9. “But all this does not mean that the police have a licence to
\nenter the names of whoever they like (dislike ?) in the surveillance register;
\nnor can the surveillance be such as to squeeze the fundamental freedoms
\nguaranteed to all citizens or to obstruct the free exercise and enjoyment of
\nthose freedoms; nor can the surveillance so intrude as to offend the dignity of
\nthe individual.  Surveillance of persons who do not fall within the categories
\nmentioned in Rule 23.4 or for reasons unconnected with the prevention of crime,
\nor excessive surveillance falling beyond the limits prescribed by the rules,
\nwill entitle a citizen to the court’s protection which the court will not
\nhesitate to give.  The very Rules which prescribe the conditions for making
\nentries in the surveillance register and the mode of surveillance appear to
\nrecognise the caution and care with which the police officers are required to
\nproceed.  The note following Rule 23.4 is instructive.  It enjoins a duty upon
\nthe police officer to construe the rule strictly and confine the entries in the
\nsurveillance register to the class of persons mentioned in the rule.  Similarly
\nRule 23.7 demands that there should be no illegal interference in the guise of
\nsurveillance.  Surveillance, therefore, has to be unobtrusive and within
\nbounds.”\n<\/p>\n
\tPara 10. “Ordinarily the names of persons with previous criminal record
\nalone are entered in the surveillance register.  They must be proclaimed
\noffenders, previous convicts, or persons who have already been placed on
\nsecurity for good behaviour.  In addition, names of persons who are reasonably
\nbelieved to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they
\nhave been convicted or not may be entered.  It is only in the case of this
\ncategory of persons that there may be occasion for abuse of the power of the
\npolice officer to make entries in the surveillance register.  But, here, the
\nentry can only be made by the order of the Superintendent of Police who is
\nprohibited from delegating his authority under Rule 23.5.  Further it is
\nnecessary that the Superintendent of Police must entertain a reasonable belief
\nthat persons whose names are to be entered in Part II are habitual offenders of
\nreceivers of stolen property.  While it may not be necessary to supply the
\ngrounds of belief to the persons whose names are entered in the surveillance
\nregister it may become necessary in some cases to satisfy the court when an
\nentry is challenged that there are grounds to entertain such reasonable belief.
\nIn fact in the present case we sent for the relevant records and we have
\nsatisfied ourselves that there were sufficient grounds for the Superintendent of
\nPolice to entertain a reasonable belief.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(emphasis added)\n<\/p>\n
\t20.\tTherefore, in the light of the facts narrated and the legal
\nprecedents, it must be held that the actions of the respondents in all the three
\nWrit Petitions are condemnable.  Opening of the history sheets in the name of
\nthree petitioners are arbitrary, unreasonable and whimsical and it would amount
\nto denial of right of citizens provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of
\nIndia to have the right of privacy.  Though opportunities were given to the
\nrespondents, they have not shown any credible materials to justify their action
\nbefore this Court.  The superior officer though had considerable responsibility
\nto oversee such records have acted in a mechanical fashion to put their initials
\nperiodically without any verification.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.\tIn the light of the same, all these three Writ Petitions are bound
\nto succeed and the respondents are directed to remove the names of the
\npetitioners from the History Sheets  maintained by the respondents in each writ
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.\tThough in the two Writ Petitions being W.P.Nos.2406 & 5378 of 2005,
\nthe petitioners were seeking a compensation, this Court is not ordering
\ncompensation as sought for by the petitioners.  However, the respondents cannot
\nbe allowed to go scot-free  in these three matters. Therefore, the concerned
\nPolice Inspectors, who were responsible for opening of the History Sheets in
\nrespect of the petitioners herein are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000\/-
\nas costs to the respective petitioners for having acted arbitrarily and without
\nany jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.\tIf they do not pay the costs within a period of four weeks from the
\ndate of the receipt of a copy of this order, the respective Superintendents of
\nPolice, shall pay the amount from the funds of the department and later recover
\nthe same from the salaries of those respondents, who were responsible for
\nopening of History Sheets in respect of each of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.\tAll these Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above
\nand connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n
ssm<\/p>\n
copy to:-\n<\/p>\n
1.The Superintendent of Police,
\n  Sivagangai District.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
\n  Sivagangai District,Sivagangai.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Tiruppathur Town Police Station,
\n  Tiruppathur.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Station House Officer,
\n  Ayyampettai Police Station,
\n  Thanjavur District.\n<\/p>\n
5.The Superintendent of Police,
\n  Thanjavur,Thanjavur District.\n<\/p>\n
6.The Superintendent of Police,
\n  Thirunelveli District,
\n  Thirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
7.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
\n  Manur Police Station,
\n  Manur,Thirunelveli District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S.Vani vs The Superintendent Of Police on 15 September, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15\/09\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.2286 of 2005 W.P.(MD)Nos.2408 and 5378 of 2005 and M.P.No.2314 of 2005 in W.P.(MD)No.2286 of 2005 and M.P.No.5854 of 2005 in W.P.(MD)No.5378 of 2005 W.P.(MD).No.5378 of 2005 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-93920","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Vani vs The Superintendent Of Police on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Vani vs The Superintendent Of Police on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-24T08:46:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Vani vs The Superintendent Of Police on 15 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-24T08:46:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4209,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008\",\"name\":\"S.Vani vs The Superintendent Of Police on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-24T08:46:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Vani vs The Superintendent Of Police on 15 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S.Vani vs The Superintendent Of Police on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Vani vs The Superintendent Of Police on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-24T08:46:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Vani vs The Superintendent Of Police on 15 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-24T08:46:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008"},"wordCount":4209,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008","name":"S.Vani vs The Superintendent Of Police on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-24T08:46:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vani-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Vani vs The Superintendent Of Police on 15 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93920","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=93920"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93920\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93920"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93920"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93920"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}