Police Cannot Summon A Person Whose Name Appears In Rowdy Register So Long As There’s No Legal Procedure: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court held that the police cannot summon a person whose name appears in the Rowdy Register, so long as there is no procedure established by law.

The Court held thus in a Writ Petition filed by an accused seeking direction to all the officers of the Karnataka State Police Department to issue a notice to him whenever his appearance is needed for the purpose of enquiry or investigation.

A Single Bench of Justice R. Nataraj observed, “… this Court has no hesitation in holding that so long as there is no procedure established by law, the respondents cannot summon a person whose name appears in the Rowdy Register. The Rowdy Register shall always be maintained as a reference to keep track of the activities of the person without intruding his private space, as right not to be disturbed is now a part of the right of privacy which is declared to be an integral part of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The Bench said that whatever might be the consequences, when there is no procedure prescribed in law to summon a rowdy sheeter, the State cannot justify summoning them orally and detaining them in the Police station for long hours as that would infringe their personal liberty.

Advocate Mayur D. Bhanu represented the Petitioner, while Additional Government Advocate (AGA) Mahantesh Shattar represented the Respondents.

Case Background

The Petitioner contended that as per the records maintained by the Police, he has been termed as a "rowdy sheeter". He contended that the Yelahanka Police Station registered a suo motu case in 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 30 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Petitioner was not named as an accused but he claimed that he was later implicated in the said case. After he was implicated in the case, provisions of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 (KCOCA) were invoked against him and he was in custody from February 2017 till November 2018. He was then released on bail but he was taken into custody by the Parappana Agrahara Police Station and he was taken to the Police station where the officers of the Central Crime Branch (CCB) took him to their office for the purpose of conducting enquiry.

He claimed that he was set free after 11 p.m. and he was directed to attend the CCB office for the next three days failing which he was allegedly threatened of being implicated in a case related to murder of Ex-Mayor of Tumakuru. Thereafter, he attended the CCB office where a rowdy parade was conducted by the Additional Commissioner of Police (ACP) and few questions were asked. However, without any provocation, the ACP allegedly lost his cool and threatened the Petitioner by raising his baton and abused him. The Petitioner claimed that he remained silent which infuriated the ACP further and he started abusing him, caught hold of him by his ear and hair and pushed him around. Thereafter, the ACP allegedly informed his subordinate to lock him up and conduct a detailed enquiry. It was further claimed that the Petitioner’s house was searched without the authority of law and since they found nothing in the house, he was brought back to the CCB office. Hence, the Petitioner sought directions from the High Court.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in the above context of the case, reiterated, “The procedure established by law which controls Article 21 should be “due procedure” and not fanciful, arbitrary or oppressive.”

The Court noted that though the Respondents have claimed that the Petitioner was involved in serious offences, the Petitioner claims that he has reformed and wants to lead a dignified life with his family and as the popular saying goes “every saint has a past and every sinner a future”, the Petitioner should be given an opportunity to reform, notwithstanding his gory past.

“Nonetheless, since the petitioner has himself volunteered to appear before the Police if a notice is issued, if the Police adopts such a procedure, that may not amount to violation of personal liberty of the petitioner. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Selvi's case (supra), where though the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the conduct of narcoanalysis test violates Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it held that if a person voluntarily agrees to undergo such a test, then the same may be done”, it said.

The Court emphasised that the interest of the Society at large cannot be undermined but must be balanced vis a vis the right of an individual in view of the claim of the Respondents that there are more than 6500 rowdies in the City of Bengaluru.

“When a rowdy sheeter is also accused of commission of an offence, the Police would undoubtedly have the powers of summoning him in the manner provided under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023. In that situation, the person whose name is entered in the Rowdy Register cannot avoid being summoned by taking shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If a name of a person is entered in the history sheet maintained by the Police under Order Nos.1052 and 1058 of the Karnataka Police Manual apart from conducting surveillance in the manner provided under Chapter XXIV of the Karnataka Police Manual. If such person also is suspect of commission of any offences, then the right of the Police under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 shall remain in tact”, it added.

Conclusion and Directions

The Court clarified that till the State passes any law prescribing the manner of summoning a person whose name is found in the rowdy register, the Court as a sentinel qui vive of fundamental rights of not only rowdy sheeters but also the public at large, considers it appropriate to balance the interest of the rowdy sheeters as well as the State and the Public.

“So long as the petitioner does not involve in the commission of any offence and is not suspected of being involved in a crime, the Police shall not summon him orally only on the ground that his name appears in the rowdy list”, it further said.

The Court directed that till the State brings in any law prescribing the procedure for securing the presence of a rowdy sheeter, in order to secure the interest of the general public, the Petitioner shall furnish a mobile number before the Police Stations, namely, Subramanya Nagar Police Station, Yelahanka New Town Police Station, Rajajinagar Police Station, and Amruthahalli Police Station, where rowdy sheets are registered against him where the Respondent - Police can inform him by sending an Short Message Service (SMS) or WhatsApp message to visit the Police Station for obtaining information about his activities.

“If despite sending an SMS or a WhatsApp message, the petitioner fails to present himself before the Police, they may visit his house for enquiry or surveillance. … It is made clear that if the petitioner involves in any crime punishable under any enactment, then the protection granted to him by this order shall automatically vanish”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Writ Petition and issued necessary directions.

Cause Title- Sunil Kumar @ Silent Sunil v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:50811)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Mayur D. Bhanu, Shamanth Gowda. J., and Charan N.S.

Respondents: AGA Mahantesh Shattar

Click here to read/download the Judgment