The Allahabad High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra and Justice Manish Mathur while stressing that the life, liberty, and dignity of any person can not be thrown to the winds merely on verbal orders of police officials issued a directive to the state of Uttar Pradesh and other government machinery, including the police, stating that any person, including an accused, cannot be summoned verbally to a police station without the consent or approval of the in-charge of the station, the subordinate police officer. (Ram Vilas Thru. Daughter Sarojani And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Others)
Facts of the case
A writ petition was filed before the High Court in which a girl (Sarojini) claimed that her parents (Ram Vilas and Savitri) were summoned to the Mahila Thana Police Station in Lucknow and did not return.
The petition was treated as Habeas Corpus and was heard on April 8 when the government counsel informed the Court that no such occurrence had taken place at the police station.
On April 13, petitioners Savitri and Ram Vilas and their daughter appeared before the Court and said that some police personnel summoned them to the police station, and when they arrived, they were detained and threatened by police personnel.
On the same day, the Inspector of the concerned police station informed the Court that the petitioners had visited the police station on April 8 around 12 noon in connection with a dispute over the partition of ancestral property, and after recording their statements, they were allowed to leave the police station around 3.30 p.m. on the same day.
However, she sought an unconditional apology and submitted that there was no deliberate attempt to humiliate or harass the petitioners but it was misconduct and in-subordination of a Constable, otherwise there was no cause for the police to have indulged in any maltreatment of petitioners.
Contention of the Parties
It was stated by deponent Durgavati that there was no deliberate attempt to humiliate or harass the petitioners but it was misconduct and in-subordination of the Constable concerned otherwise there was no cause for the police to have indulged in any maltreatment of petitioners. In future the police shall be mindful of their activities.
Court's observations and Judgment
The bench referred to a number of judgments passed by the Supreme Court like A.K. Gopalan versus State of Madras, A.I.R. 1950 Supreme Court 27, Kharak Singh versus State of U.P., A.I.R. 1963 Supreme Court 1295 and observed, "In the case of K.S, Putta Swamy (supra) it has been held that when validity of law or State action is questioned on the ground that it violates a guarantee contained under Article 21, the scope of challenge is not confined only to whether the procedure for deprivation of life or personal liberty is fair, just and reasonable but expands to the interrelationship between the guarantees against arbitrariness and the protection of life and personal liberty which operates in a facilitated plane since the procedure for deprivation must be fair, just and reasonable since Article 14 impacts both the procedure and the expression law. The Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Putta Swamy (supra) has indicated three requirements which are to be fulfilled in order to keep the restraints imposed upon a person, within the ambit of fundamental rights. It has been held that the first requirement for imposing such a restraint must be based on a law in existence to justify any such encroachment on the express rights of Article 21. It has been held that existence of law is an essential requirement for imposing restrictions on rights which are guaranteed under part (III) of the Constitution."
The bench further noted, "As has already been held that invasion of life or personal liberty must be based on a valid law defined in terms of legitimate state and should be proportional to ensure a rational nexus between the object and means to achieve it. The action taken by police personnel in the present case indicates clear flouting of the right guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution since oral summoning of the petitioners and their subsequent detention in police station has been resorted to without even lodging of first information report."
The bench further noted that the State in its counter affidavit has not been able to explain any law under which such a procedure could have been followed particularly when the police personnel summoning the petitioners was not even the investigating officer of the case. Right of locomotion being an essential part of right to life and personal liberty can not be trifled with in such a casual manner merely being clothed with State authority. It is the bounden duty of the State and its instrumentalities to be ever vigilant so that fundamental rights guaranteed under part (III) of the Constitution are not infringed, particularly without any authority of valid law which would have a deleterious effect on an ordered society.
The bench disposing of the petition remarked, "In view of aforesaid, it would be necessary to direct the State and its instrumentalities that in case any application or complaint is given at any police station which requires investigation and presence of the accused then suitable course of action as prescribed under provisions of Criminal Procedure Code are to be followed which contemplate a written notice being served upon such a person but that too only consequent to a case being registered. In case there is no investigating officer at that juncture, the subordinate police officials are required to take permission/approval of the station incharge before issuing such notice or summons. On no account can an accused or any other person be summoned to a police station orally by subordinate police officials without the consent/approval of the station incharge. The life, liberty and dignity of any person can not be thrown to the winds merely on verbal orders of police officials. It is expected that State and its instrumentalities will be cautious in future with regard to observations and directions issued herein above."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
