Telangana High Court
Vankayala Shekhar vs The State Of Telangana on 25 March, 2026
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No. 1042 OF 2020
DATE: 25.03.2026
Between:
Vankayala Shekhar
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana and Others
...Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i. To direct the Government of Telangana through Respondent No. 1 to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) for wrongfully invoking preventive detention Act against petitioner and for unlawfully putting the pertitioners personal liberty at stake ii. To direct the Government of Telangana through Respondent No.2 and 3 to initiate necessary departmental and other proceedings against Respondent No.4 for abusing his authority...."
2. None appeared for the petitioner.
3. Heard Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
2
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioner is involved in approximately five criminal cases, out of which three relate to offences of a sexual nature, one pertains to offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), and another concerns matrimonial cruelty. It is further submitted that Crime Nos.532 of 2018 and 327 of 2020 have culminated in acquittal, while the remaining cases are still pending trial. It is contended that, having regard to the nature of the offences and in accordance with the applicable Standing Orders, the police authorities have opened and periodically renewed the rowdy/suspect sheet against the petitioner, and the same presently stands extended up to 31.12.2026. Considering the petitioner's antecedents and the need for surveillance, it is argued that the continuance of the rowdy sheet is justified. Accordingly, dismissal of the writ petition is sought.
5. I have carefully perused the material placed on record.
6. The record reflects that the petitioner was implicated in five criminal cases, out of which two have ended in acquittal. The remaining cases pertain primarily to allegations under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and one under Section 498-A IPC. 3 Significantly, it is not in dispute that no fresh criminal case has been registered against the petitioner since the year 2019.
7. Standing Order 601 governs the opening and continuation of rowdy/suspect sheets by the police authorities. The said provision mandates that such surveillance measures may be resorted to only where the activities of a person are prejudicial to public peace and tranquility, or where there is credible material indicating a propensity to commit offences. While involvement in certain categories of offences, including offences affecting public order or decency, may justify opening of a rowdy sheet, its continuance is not automatic and must be based on periodic, objective review.
8. It is a settled legal principle that the opening and continuation of a rowdy sheet, being a measure that directly impinges upon the fundamental rights of an individual, particularly the right to privacy and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India must satisfy the test of reasonableness, necessity, and proportionality. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1963 SC 1295) and subsequently in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, has recognized that 4 surveillance measures must be narrowly tailored and justified by compelling state interest.
9. Further, judicial precedents have consistently held that where no fresh criminal activity is attributed to a person for a considerable period, ordinarily spanning two to three years, continuation of a rowdy sheet becomes unjustified and arbitrary unless supported by cogent material demonstrating ongoing threat to public order.
10. In the present case, the material on record clearly indicates that no crime has been registered against the petitioner since 2019. Despite this, the renewal proceedings placed before this Court reveal that the competent authority has mechanically extended the rowdy sheet on an annual basis, without recording any substantive reasons or independent satisfaction as required under the Standing Orders.
11. The reasons cited in the renewal requisitions such as "the movements of the rowdy sheeter are doubtful" or that "he is likely to commit offences" are vague, speculative, and unsupported by any concrete material. The competent authority, instead of undertaking an objective evaluation of the necessity for continued surveillance, appears to have merely endorsed the recommendations without due application of mind. Such an approach is clearly contrary to the 5 mandate of Standing Order 601 and the settled legal principles governing preventive surveillance.
12. In the absence of any recent criminal activity and in view of the failure of the authorities to adhere to the prescribed procedure and standards for renewal, the continuation of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner cannot be sustained in law.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The rowdy/suspect sheet opened against the petitioner is hereby quashed, and the respondent police authorities are directed to forthwith take necessary steps to delete the name of the petitioner from the relevant records. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J Date: 25.03.2026 CHS