CASE NAME:
Kailash Chand Soni vs State of Haryana
CASE DATE:
1st April, 2024
PARTIES INVOLVED:-
Petitioner: Kailash Chand Soni
Respondent: State of Haryana
BENCH/JUDGE: Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:-
1. Rule 23.4 (3) (b) of The Punjab Police Rules:-
Empowers the Superintendent of Police to include individuals in Surveillance Register based on reasonable belief of them being habitual offenders.
2. Rule 23.12 of The Punjab Police Rules:-
Pertains to the treatment of history sheets and personal files.
SUBJECT:-
The petitioner sought removal from a police surveillance register, citing false FIRs and political rivalry. Despite past acquittals, the court sustained police’s discretion, considering the petitioner’s extreme long criminal history. The decision, by prioritizing law enforcement efficacy, strikes a balance between individual rights and public safety.
OVERVIEW:-
The petitioner, Kailash Chand Soni, was a well-known personality in his committee. In addition to his role as Vice President of the Narnaul Municipal Committee, he was repeatedly elected to the position of counsellor. Even though he was active in community affairs, the police recorded his name in the surveillance register citing his alleged involvement in 22 criminal cases, one of which was from 2023. Based on his previous acquittals, he filed the current appeal to have his name removed from the charges because he believed they were unfair and unfounded and that the accusations were the result of rivalries driven by politics.
ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT:-
- Whether the petitioner’s inclusion in the police surveillance register despite previous acquittals and alleged false FIRs violated his right to reputation and privacy?
- Whether the police were justified in retaining the petitioner’s name in the register based on their extensive criminal history?
CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:-
- The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Rahul Bhargawa, argued that the petitioner’s inclusion in the surveillance register, even after his acquittals in many cases, infringes his reputation and privacy rights.
- He contended that false FIRs driven by political rivalry unjustly tainted his image, warranting removal from the register to restore their standing in society.
CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:-
- The learned counsel for respondent, Mr Pankaj Mulwani, argued that the petitioner’s extreme long criminal history merited his inclusion in the surveillance register.
- He asserted that the register serves public safety interests by monitoring individuals with criminal antecedents, regardless of acquittals or alleged political motives behind the FIRs.
ANALYSIS BY COURT:-
- The court acknowledged the petitioner’s request for removal from the surveillance register.
- It considered the petitioner’s previous acquittals and allegations of false FIRs.
- The respondent emphasized the petitioner’s extensive criminal history as justification for inclusion.
- Public safety was prioritized in the court’s decision-making process.
JUDGMENT:-
The court, after considering the arguments presented by both parties, upheld the respondent’s decision to retain the petitioner’s name in the surveillance register. Despite the petitioner’s claims of false FIRs and political motives, the court deemed the petitioner’s extensive criminal history as sufficient grounds for inclusion.
CONCLUSION:-
From the case, it’s clear that the court prioritized public safety and law enforcement efficacy over individual reputation rights. Despite the petitioner’s claims of false FIRs and political motives, the court upheld the police’s decision to include the petitioner in the surveillance register due to their extensive criminal history. The judgment underscores the balancing act between individual rights and societal interests in law enforcement decisions.
