Police can’t enter history-sheeters’ homes at night for surveillance: Kerala HC
text_fields
Kochi: The Kerala High Court has ruled that police officers do not have the authority to knock on the doors of individuals labelled as history sheeters or suspected persons, nor to enter their homes at night under the guise of surveillance. The judgment came from Justice V G Arun, who was hearing a plea filed by a man accused of threatening police officers who attempted to conduct a late-night check at his residence.
Allowing the petition, the court quashed the First Information Report (FIR) and all subsequent proceedings against the man. The court made it clear that the police have no right to intrude into the homes of individuals merely because they are under surveillance.
"Under the guise of surveillance, the police cannot knock on the doors or barge into the houses of history sheeters," the court stated.
Justice Arun further observed that the idea of a home extends beyond just a physical space, carrying emotional, existential, and social dimensions. “In other words, every man’s house is his castle or temple, the sanctity of which cannot be violated by knocking on the door at odd hours. A person’s right to life encompasses the right to live with dignity, and dignity is non-negotiable,” the court emphasised.
The ruling pointed out that the Kerala Police Manual permits only ‘informal watching’ of history sheeters and ‘close watch’ of those leading a criminal life. “Undoubtedly, neither of those expressions permit domicile visits at night,” the court said.
It also cited Section 39 of the Kerala Police Act, which obliges individuals to comply with only the lawful directions of a police officer. The court clarified that “knocking on the doors of a history sheeter at midnight and demanding him to come out of the house cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as a lawful direction.”
The court held that, in light of this, the petitioner could not be prosecuted for allegedly obstructing a police officer from performing official duties by refusing to comply with the order to come out of his house at night. It added that if the petitioner had used derogatory language or threats against the officers during the refusal, such behaviour might constitute a different offence, but not the one currently charged.
The petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated in the case as retaliation for a complaint he had made alleging harassment by the police, which had prompted a High Court-ordered inquiry. The police, however, claimed that during their routine night surveillance of rowdy history sheeters, officers went to verify whether the petitioner was present at home. According to their account, when asked to open the door, the petitioner refused and allegedly abused and intimidated the officers.
The court, however, found that the officers' conduct lacked legal justification and reaffirmed the constitutional protection of personal dignity and privacy, particularly within one's home.
