Hyderabad: Police cannot mechanically renew a rowdy sheet year after year without placing concrete material on record to show that a person has actually disturbed public peace, the Telangana High Court has ruled.
Quashing a rowdy sheet that had been maintained against a social worker, Justice N Tukaramji held that vague, generalised allegations and rubber-stamp endorsements by supervising officers, without any independent application of mind, are contrary to law and violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
A rowdy sheet is a police register in which the names of persons considered a threat to public order are entered and periodically reviewed. Being on such a list effectively subjects a person to surveillance, repeated summons and visits by the police.
The petitioner, Madisetti Samelu, described himself as a social worker active among backward and tribal communities. He told the court he had been falsely roped into multiple cases because of local political rivalry and his work in support of landless poor.
He pointed out that most of the cases against him had either ended in compromise or been withdrawn, yet the police continued to maintain his rowdy sheet, summoned him repeatedly and sent constables to his home, effectively keeping him under constant watch.
The state contested his plea, citing 24 cases, including bind-over proceedings, registered against him between 2003 and 2024. Authorities claimed he was visiting tribal villages, holding meetings and instigating residents to encroach on private, government and forest land, causing law and order problems. The rowdy sheet, they said, was a necessary preventive measure.
The High Court noted that in a democracy, organising meetings, raising awareness among marginalised communities or mobilising them to seek land rights cannot by itself be treated as unlawful activity, unless there is credible evidence of an intent to incite violence or breach public order.
The court found that the Sub-Inspector’s proposal for renewal contained generic phrases such as the petitioner being “young and energetic” without any specifics. The Circle Inspector’s recommendation and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer’s approval amounted to little more than the word “permitted,” with no reasons recorded.
“No specific instances, supporting material or concrete evidence have been placed on record to substantiate such claims. Mere assertions, in the absence of verifiable material, cannot justify continued surveillance measures that impinge upon individual liberty,” the court said.
The court referred to Standing Order no 601 of the Telangana Police Manual, which governs the opening and continuation of rowdy sheets. It held that the Standing Order requires periodic and meaningful review, not an annual rubber stamp, precisely because being on such a register carries serious consequences for a person’s rights.
Citing the Supreme Court’s landmark privacy judgment in KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India and the earlier ruling in Malak Singh vs State of Punjab, the court underlined that state surveillance over individuals must not be arbitrary, excessive or devoid of procedural safeguards.
The court quashed the rowdy sheet and directed police to forthwith remove the petitioner’s name from all rowdy and suspect registers.
It, however, made clear that the ruling would not stop the police from initiating fresh proceedings against him, if warranted, strictly in accordance with law and in compliance with Standing Order no 601.
This post was last modified on May 5, 2026 11:09 pm