APHC010290922020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 19231/2020 Between: 1.DEVARASETTI CHANDRA SEKHARA PRASAD, S/O VENKATA SWAMI, AGED 39 YEARS, 0CC R/O 26-20-73, OPP.L8TH LANE, AT AGRAHARAM, CHUTTUGUNTA, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DG OF POLICE, DGP OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DIST., 3.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR URBAN, GUNTUR. 4.THE SHO, NAGARAMPALEM, GUNTUR. 5.THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR URBAN, GUNTUR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: No representation for the Petitioner. 2. In the Writ Petition the prayer is like this: “Declare the action of Respondent No.3 in registering a case in Cr.No.40 of 2020 dated 23.07.2020 for the offence punishable under Section 505(2) of ‘the I.P.C.,’ on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Respondent No.4 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of fundamental rights.” 3. Whereas in the writ affidavit the prayer is thus: “Declare the action of the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 in daily calling the Petitioner to the Police Station without any reason, without considering the fact that the Petitioner is suffering from Covid-19 as illegal, arbitrary and abuse of the process of law and violation of fundamental rights.” 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, and also on perusal of the counter filed by Respondent No.4, submits that the Petitioner was never unnecessarily called to the police station. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has indulged in three crimes namely Cr. Nos.69 of 2014, 358 of 2015 and 276 of 2017. Police in order to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of the Petitioner, after obtaining permission from the Assistant Superintendent of Police, West Division, Guntur Urban on 21.08.2015 opened rowdy sheet against the Petitioner vide C.No.85/ASP- WD/2015. Later on, the said rowdy sheet was closed on the Petitioner on 10.05.2016. 3 5. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Udathu Suresh v. State of A.P1, while adverting to the constitutional contours of privacy and the jurisprudential evolution from Kharak Singh v. State of U.P2 through Gobind v. State of M.P3 and culminating in K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India4, has unequivocally held that the practice of opening and continuing rowdy sheets without statutory sanction constitutes a manifest infraction of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court observed that mere departmental instructions embodied in Police Standing Orders, lacking the force of “law” within the meaning of Article 21, cannot justify domiciliary visits, coercive summoning, or the branding of citizens as “rowdies” absent credible material and periodic judicially reviewable safeguards. In trenchant terms, the learned Judge emphasized that surveillance must be unobtrusive, proportionate, and founded upon compelling State interest, and that indiscriminate continuation of rowdy sheets, even after acquittals or quashing of FIRs, verges perilously close to unconstitutional excess. Thus, the Court reiterated that the right to privacy, being a primordial natural right and intrinsic to liberty, can only be curtailed by a fair, just, and reasonable law, and not by administrative fiat masquerading as regulation. 1 2022 SCC OnLine AP 1748 2 1962 SCC OnLine SC 10 3 (1975) 2 SCC 148 4 (2017) 10 SCC 1 4 6. Another learned Single Judge of this Court in K.Srihari Kumar v. Superintendent of Police, Anantapur5, while disposing of the batch of Writ Petitions, has categorically declared that the opening and continuation of rowdy-sheets, suspect-sheets, and history-sheets under Chapter- 37 of the A.P. Police Manual and Police Standing Orders are void, lacking statutory force and constitutional legitimacy. Relying upon the authoritative pronouncement in K.S. Puttaswamy supra and the earlier common order dated 15.07.2022 in W.P. No. 3568 of 2022 and connected matters, the Court held that surveillance of individuals on the basis of such administrative instructions amounts to an infringement of the fundamental right to privacy under Part- III of the Constitution. It was further emphasized that collection of personal data, domiciliary visits, coercive summoning, or branding of citizens as “rowdies” cannot be sustained absent a valid law that meets the thresholds of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality. Consequently, all the impugned rowdy-sheets in that batch were quashed, with a clear direction that no surveillance shall be maintained and no coercive measures shall be undertaken against the Petitioners therein on the basis of such void instruments. 7. The police department has challenged the two orders before the learned Division Bench of this Court by filing Writ Appeal in W.A.No.674 of 2022. The learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.09.2022 in in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.A.No.674 of 2022 passed an order suspending the 5 MANU/AP/1231/2022 5 judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15.07.2022 in W.P.No.3568 of 2022, which had declared Chapter 37 of the A.P. Police Standing Orders void and directed closure of all rowdy sheets in the State. The Division Bench, after tracing the origin of the Standing Orders under the A.P. (Andhra Area) District Police Act, 1859 and considering precedents including Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department6 and Malak Singh v. State of P&H7, held that a prima facie case was made out by the appellants. Accordingly, while suspending the learned Single Judge’s order, it directed that rowdy sheets already closed shall not be reopened, but fresh rowdy sheets may be opened if new material arises. It further clarified that surveillance must be in accordance with Standing Orders, summoning of suspects should be only by prior notice under law, and police shall not indulge in night domiciliary visits except for lawful arrest, with collection of fingerprints and personal data strictly in accordance with procedure established by law. 8. In view of the directions of the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 12.09.2022 in in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.A.No.674 of 2022, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 not to frequently call the Petitioner to the Police Station and made them to sit hours together without any substantial reasons. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 1999 (6) ALT 240 7 (1981) 1 SCC 420 6 As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 20.01.2026 VTS