MALAK SINGH ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 311 · Decided: 05-12-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' , 
• 
I 
. ' 
MALAK .SINGH ETC .. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & HARYANA & ORS. 
December 5, 19 80 
(R. S. PATHAK AND 0. ClnNNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
Rfght to privacy of the citizen versus duty of the police to prevent crime-
Surv~illance register to be maintained by the police as per Punjab Police Rules, 
vircs·. thereof not challenged-Whether a perso?J. is entitled to be .given .an 
opportunity before his name is included in the said register-Whether tlte 
names in the register could be entered only if persons fitted into the category 
of 1hose n•ho are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers 
of stolen property whether they have been convicted or 
not-Punjab Police 
Rules 1.5, 1.21, 23.4, 23.5, 23.7, 23.8 and.23.31 scope of-Police Act 1861 Section 
23....:Constitution oflndia, Article 19(1)(d). 
· 
· 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court · 
HELD : ( 1) Prevention of crime is one ·of the 
prime purposes of the 
constitution of a police force. . In connection With the duties spoken of in 
section 23 of the Police Act, 1861, it will be necessary to keep discreet Sur-
veillance over reputed bad characters, habitual offenders and other potential 
offenders. Organised crime cannot be successfully· fought without dose watch of 
suSpeCts. 
But surveillance may be intrusive and it may so seriously encroach 
on the privacy of a citizen as to infringe his fundamental right to personal 
liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and the freedom of 
movement guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(d). That such a thing cannot be per• 
milted is recognised by the Punjab Police Rules themselves. [316G, 317A-B) 
Rule 23.7 which prescribes the mode of surveillance permits close \Vatch 
over the moven1ents of the person under surveillance but without any illegal 
interference. 
Permissible surveillance is only to the extent of a close _ \vatch 
over the movements of the person under surveillance and no 1nore·. 
So -lorig 
as surveillance . is for . the purP:ose of preventing_ crime and is confined to the 
lirilits prescribed by Rule 23.7 a person · whosC naine is included in the sur-
veillance registered .cannot have a genuine cause for. complaint. 
Interference 
in accordance with law and for the prevention of disorder and crime is an 
exception recognised even by the European Convention of Human Rights to 
the right to respect for a person's private and family lif.e (Article 8). [317B-DJ 
2. Discreet surveillance of suspects, habitual arid potential offenders, may 
be necessary and so the maintenance of history sheet and surveillance a register 
may be necessary too, for the purpose of prevention of crime. History sheets 
and surveillance registers have to be and are confidential documents. 
Neither 
the persons whose name is entered in the register nor any other member of the 
public can have access to the surveillance register, the exception, being that 
the District Magistrate and the- llaqa Magistrate are entitled to examine the 
records in accordance with Rules 1.15 and 1.21. · The nature and character 
of the function involved. in the_ making of an entry in the surveillance register 
B. 
c •i 
)) 
E 
F 
G 
R 
312 
SUPREME COURT REPOl\TS 
[1981] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
being utterly admini~1rative a.nd DOB-judicial the rule of tludi aitrem partem 
is not applicable. 
Ir. fact observance of the principles of natural justice may 
defeat the very object of the rule providing for surveillance. 
There is every 
possibility of the ends of justice being defeated instead of being served. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
[317G·H, 318A·BJ 
Further the entry in the surveillance register is to be made on the basis 
of the nJ:i:erial provided by the history sheet whose contents, by their very 
nature have to be confidential. It \\'OUld be contrary to the public interest to 
reveal the inform2tion in the history sheet, particularly the source of informa-
tion. 
Revelation of the source of information may put the informant i;i 
jeopardy. The observance of the principle of natural justice, apart from not 
ser\'ing the ends Of justice may thus lead to undesirable results. 
The rule 
audi altre111 partern is, therefore, not attracted. 
[31SC-E] 
Re v. K (lnfams). 1965 A.C. 201 & 238, quoted with approval. 
3. The intention behind Rule 23 is not to give the police a licence to enter 
the names of whoever they like (dislike?) in the surveillance register; nor 
can tbe surveillance be such as to squeeze the fundamental freedom guaranteed 
to all citizens or to obstruct the f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.