Introduction:

In a significant judgment, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court directed the state to remove the name of a man from the police’s Surveillance Register, citing the absence of any conviction in two or more cases pending against him. The case, Rajmal Kala v. State of Rajasthan, brought before Justice Manoj Kumar Garg, challenged the decision of the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur, to open the petitioner’s history sheet, based on his involvement in seven criminal cases. The petitioner’s counsel argued that his name should not have been placed in the Surveillance Register as he had not been convicted twice in any of the cases. This judgment delves into the application of Rajasthan Police Rules, particularly Rule 4.4, which governs the criteria for maintaining names in the Surveillance Register, and assesses whether the petitioner met these requirements.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, Rajmal Kala, approached the High Court contending that the Superintendent of Police’s order to open his history sheet was arbitrary and violated his fundamental rights to life and liberty. The counsel for the petitioner emphasized that under Rule 4.4 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, the petitioner did not qualify for surveillance, as he had not been convicted twice in the cases against him. The petitioner had been booked in seven cases, of which two had ended in acquittals, one had been closed after a final report was filed, and one was still under investigation, with the remaining cases pending trial. The petitioner’s counsel argued that as per the provisions of Rule 4.4, a person’s name can only be added to the Surveillance Register if they have been convicted twice or more or if they are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property, regardless of convictions. Since the petitioner had not been convicted twice, his inclusion in the Surveillance Register was unlawful.

The counsel further pointed out that the mere registration of cases against the petitioner did not suffice to establish his habitual offender status. Without a conviction, the inclusion of his name in the Surveillance Register was not justifiable. The petitioner’s counsel requested the High Court to quash the Superintendent of Police’s order and direct the removal of his name from the register, protecting his right to liberty and dignity.

Arguments of the Respondent (State of Rajasthan):

The State, represented by its counsel, Mr. Dhanraj Vaishnav, argued that the petitioner was a habitual offender and that all seven cases registered against him fell under different sections of the law. The state’s argument hinged on the premise that the petitioner’s continuous involvement in criminal activities justified the inclusion of his name in the Surveillance Register. The authorities contended that the petitioner had a criminal background and, based on the number and nature of the cases, could be considered a potential threat to law and order, despite not having been convicted twice.

The state cited the Surveillance Register as a tool to monitor habitual offenders and insisted that the petitioner’s name was rightfully included given the multiple pending cases against him. The authorities argued that the open history sheet was necessary for the police to track the petitioner’s activities and prevent further crimes. The state’s legal team maintained that the law allowed for discretion in such matters, and therefore, the order to maintain the petitioner’s name in the register should stand.

Court’s Judgment:

The High Court, after considering the arguments, carefully examined Rule 4.4 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, which governs the Surveillance Register and specifies the criteria for placing a person’s name in it. The Court noted that under this rule, the name of an individual can be added to the register if they have been convicted twice in different cases, are habitual offenders, or are under specific security provisions. The Court further observed that although the petitioner had seven cases registered against him, two of them had resulted in acquittals, and no convictions had occurred in the remaining cases.

Justice Garg, while delivering the judgment, stated that the consistent precedent law had established that a person’s name should not be included in the Surveillance Register unless they had been convicted in two separate cases. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had not met this criterion, and thus, the action of the Superintendent of Police in ordering the opening of the history sheet was arbitrary and unlawful. The Court highlighted the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed by the Constitution and stressed that a person’s reputation and freedom should not be curtailed without legal justification.

The Court concluded that the inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the Surveillance Register was not by the provisions of Rule 4.4, and it ordered the authorities to remove the petitioner’s name forthwith from the register. The judgment emphasized that while the state has the right to take necessary steps to monitor habitual offenders, such measures must be in strict compliance with the law and not based on arbitrary or unsubstantiated claims.

In light of the findings, the petition was allowed, and the Court issued directions to immediately remove the petitioner’s name from the Surveillance Register. The judgment reinforced the principle of individual rights and the importance of adhering to established legal procedures in matters of surveillance and police discretion.