In a significant decision reaffirming the sanctity of personal liberty and the right to privacy, the Allahabad High Court recently restrained the Uttar Pradesh Police from conducting late-night domiciliary visits to the residence of a man labeled as a "history-sheeter" by the authorities. The judgment came in response to a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of the alleged history-sheeter, who sought relief from what she described as arbitrary and unlawful conduct by the police. The petitioner alleged that the constant and intimidating surveillance by police officers during odd hours had not only disrupted the peace of their household but had also psychologically impacted her family, especially her children.
The petitioner contended that her husband had been wrongfully categorized as a history-sheeter, despite having either been acquitted or discharged in most of the cases filed against him. She claimed that the police continued to subject her family to coercive tactics under the garb of surveillance, including frequent visits at night, without any legal authorization or court directive. These visits, according to her, amounted to a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to live with dignity and privacy.
The state, represented by the police authorities, defended their actions by stating that such visits were part of routine surveillance measures carried out on individuals listed under the "history-sheet" to ensure that they do not engage in criminal activities. They argued that this practice was well established under police regulations and was aimed at maintaining public order. However, the court took serious note of the manner and frequency of the visits, especially their timing during the night hours, and questioned the necessity and legality of such actions in the absence of any fresh criminal activity or immediate threat to law and order.
The bench, headed by Justice Saurabh Lavania, made strong observations about the balance between state power and individual rights. It emphasized that while the state does have the responsibility to maintain law and order, such responsibility cannot override constitutional protections. The court noted that the right to privacy, as upheld by the Supreme Court in landmark judgments like K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, is an intrinsic part of the right to life. Any intrusion into an individual’s private space by the state, particularly one that causes mental distress and lacks legal justification, must be carefully scrutinized and cannot be allowed to continue unchecked.
Consequently, the court ordered the Uttar Pradesh Police to cease all night-time domiciliary visits to the petitioner’s residence, unless they are backed by a specific order from a competent court or are required for a legitimate and urgent law enforcement purpose. The court also underscored the importance of due process and fairness, suggesting that a person cannot be perpetually harassed under the pretext of being a history-sheeter, especially when there is no credible evidence of ongoing criminal behavior.
This judgment stands as a crucial reminder to law enforcement agencies about the constitutional limitations on their powers and reinforces the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual liberties from executive excess.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.