Court Upholds Fundamental Rights, Criticizes Arbitrary Police Action
In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court has quashed the rowdy sheet maintained against Madisetti Samelu, a social worker actively engaged in the welfare of backward and tribal communities. The court found the continuation of the rowdy sheet to be arbitrary and in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Justice N. Tukaramji presided over the matter and delivered the judgment on March 23, 2026, in Writ Petition No. 23418 of 2016.
Madisetti Samelu, represented by Advocate Namavarapu Chanti Babu, challenged the police action of opening and maintaining a rowdy sheet against him. The petitioner alleged that the rowdy sheet was initiated without lawful justification and was driven by local political rivalry due to his support to landless poor persons. Despite multiple criminal cases registered against him over the years, the petitioner argued that most cases had either ended in compromise or been withdrawn, and none resulted in convictions.
The court observed that in a democratic society, activities such as organizing meetings and raising awareness among marginalized communities cannot be deemed unlawful unless there is credible evidence of intent to incite violence or disturb public order. The police authorities failed to produce specific instances or material evidence to substantiate their allegations against the petitioner. The court noted that mere assertions could not justify continued surveillance measures that infringe upon individual liberty.
The judgment referenced Standing Order No. 601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, which prescribes the conditions and procedure for maintaining a rowdy sheet. It mandates periodic and meaningful review, recognizing its implications on fundamental rights. The court found that the renewal of the rowdy sheet in this case was mechanical and lacked application of mind, with generalized allegations unsupported by concrete evidence.
The ruling also drew upon landmark cases such as Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which recognized the right to privacy as part of Article 21, and Malak Singh v. State of Punjab, which emphasized the need for procedural safeguards in surveillance over individuals.
In conclusion, the court directed the respondent police authorities to take immediate steps to remove Madisetti Samelu's name from the rowdy/suspect sheet registers. However, the court clarified that the police are not precluded from initiating fresh proceedings if warranted, strictly in accordance with law and compliance with the requirements of Standing Order No. 601.
The decision reaffirms the judiciary’s role in safeguarding fundamental rights and scrutinizing arbitrary exercises of power by authorities, ensuring that individual liberties are not compromised without due process.
Bottom line:-
The continuation of a rowdy sheet against an individual without credible material evidence and proper procedural safeguards violates fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 14, 21, 226 of the Constitution of India, Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders, Standing Order No. 601
Madisetti Samelu v. State of Telangana, (Telangana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2893482
