Introduction:

In Sunil Kumar @ Silent Sunil v. State of Karnataka, Writ Petition No. 18789 of 2019, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice R. Nataraj, partly allowed a petition filed by Sunil Kumar alias Silent Sunil, who sought a direction restraining the police from orally summoning him merely because his name appeared in the rowdy sheeter list. The petitioner, who had been previously accused in nearly twenty-four criminal cases ranging from murder to dacoity but subsequently acquitted in twenty-two of them with the remaining proceedings quashed, contended that despite the absence of any pending criminal case, the police were regularly calling him to police stations, detaining him for long hours, and subjecting him to harassment. He argued that such actions violated his personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that neither the Karnataka Police Manual nor the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 prescribed any procedure for summoning a person listed as a rowdy sheeter. The police defended their practice by stating that surveillance was essential for maintaining public order, citing Clause 2 of Standing Order No. 1003 dated 27.07.2013, and further contended that the petitioner was attempting to demoralize the police force by filing frivolous complaints. The Court, after examining the statutory framework and constitutional principles, held that in the absence of any law authorizing such oral summons, the practice was unconstitutional, and until rules were framed, the petitioner would only be required to furnish a mobile number so that the police may contact him through SMS or WhatsApp whenever his presence was necessary. If he failed to appear despite such messages, the police were permitted to conduct enquiries at his residence. The judgment emphasized the balance between public safety and personal liberty, reiterating that the right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 cannot be compromised without procedure established by law.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, represented by Advocates Mayur D. Bhanu, Shamanth Gowda J., and Charan N. S., argued that the repeated oral summons issued by various police stations amounted to harassment and a clear violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. He asserted that although twenty-four criminal cases had once been registered against him, every one of them had either resulted in acquittal or quashing, leaving no pending proceedings against him except the continued maintenance of a rowdy sheet. The petitioner contended that the police were abusing the pretext of surveillance to summon him without cause, subject him to verbal abuse, and detain him for hours, which not only infringed upon his liberty but also stigmatized him in society. He emphasized that the Karnataka Police Manual, the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 contained no provision that allowed police to summon a rowdy sheeter orally, particularly when the individual was not a suspect in any offence. The petitioner argued that police action must comply with the doctrine of fairness and due process, and absent statutory authority, their conduct was illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. He highlighted that the right to privacy, recognized by the Supreme Court as part of Article 21, protected individuals from unnecessary intrusion, and that mere entry into a rowdy register did not strip a person of fundamental rights. As such, he sought directions restraining the police from summoning him orally and requiring the State to evolve a lawful procedure for securing the presence of rowdy sheeters, if necessary.

Arguments of the Respondents:

The State, represented by Additional Government Advocate Mahantesh Shattar, contended that the surveillance conducted on the petitioner was lawful and necessary for maintaining public order and preventing criminal activities. The police argued that Standing Order No. 1003 dated 27.07.2013 empowered them to keep watch over rowdy sheeters, their followers, and persons with a criminal background, including goondas, bootleggers, and habitual offenders, and that gathering information regarding their activities was essential to safeguarding community safety. The respondents submitted that the petitioner, despite projecting himself as a social worker, was attempting to create hurdles in policing by filing frivolous complaints aimed at demoralizing police personnel. They further argued that Bengaluru City alone had more than 6,540 rowdy sheeters, and prescribing an elaborate statutory procedure for summoning them would significantly hinder law enforcement, strain resources, and potentially lead to disturbances in public order. The police maintained that oral summons had always been the accepted practice in the absence of specific rules and that such summons were not arbitrary since they were followed by brief enquiries after which the individuals were sent back. They insisted that the petitioner’s rights were not violated in any manner and that the Court, if at all inclined, should direct the State to frame regulations rather than restrict police powers, as restricting oral summons would severely impact crime-prevention efforts across the State.

Court’s Judgment:

The Karnataka High Court, after an extensive evaluation of constitutional principles, statutory framework, and the competing interests of personal liberty and public safety, held that oral summons issued to rowdy sheeters, in the absence of any procedure established by law, violated Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court began by acknowledging that the State has a legitimate interest in preventing crime, monitoring individuals with criminal histories, and ensuring effective investigation of offences. However, it emphasized that such surveillance must operate within the confines of law and cannot undermine fundamental rights. Justice R. Nataraj observed that it was undisputed that neither the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 nor the Karnataka Police Manual prescribed any method for summoning a rowdy sheeter. Without statutory backing, the practice of orally summoning and detaining individuals solely because their names appeared in a rowdy register was unconstitutional, unfair, and arbitrary. The Court reiterated that the right to life under Article 21 encompassed dignity, privacy, and the right not to be disturbed unnecessarily by the State. It held that the existence of a name in the rowdy register, a document meant only for internal reference, could not be used as a tool to intrude upon personal liberty. At the same time, the Court clarified that if a rowdy sheeter was suspected of committing an offence or if his presence was required for investigation, the police could invoke their powers under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023, which provided statutory authority to summon individuals lawfully. The judgment struck a balance by directing the petitioner to furnish a mobile number to police stations where rowdy sheets were maintained against him, enabling the police to contact him via SMS or WhatsApp rather than oral summons. If he failed to appear despite such communication, the police were allowed to visit his residence for enquiry. Ultimately, the Court held that until the State established a proper legal framework, oral summons to rowdy sheeters could not be sustained, thereby safeguarding constitutional liberties while still permitting legitimate policing operations.