[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
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.
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.
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
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
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
