In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that the inclusion of individuals in the Gunda/Surveillance List without providing an opportunity to be heard is a violation of natural justice and constitutional rights. The case, WP(CR) No. 201 of 2024, involved petitioner Ashutosh Bohidar, a 38-year-old farmer from Raigarh, who challenged his inclusion in the list by the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh. The court, presided over by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, delivered a judgment that underscores the importance of due process in administrative actions.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Hari Agrawal, alleged that six FIRs registered against him in 2022 were part of a targeted campaign of harassment orchestrated by respondent no. 5, Ganga Prasad Banjare, the then Station House Officer of Tamnar Police Station. According to Bohidar, these cases were fabricated to suppress his opposition to alleged illegal activities by a corporate entity. He argued that his inclusion in the Gunda/Surveillance List, based on these FIRs, was unjustified and procedurally flawed.
The petitioner first became aware of his inclusion in the list in August 2023, following queries from local police during a visit to his residence. This prompted him to file a writ petition challenging the order dated June 30, 2022, which listed him under the Gunda/Surveillance category. Bohidar contended that the action was taken without any notice or opportunity for him to defend himself, violating the principles of natural justice.
Key Legal Issues
1. Violation of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that the order to include him in the Gunda List was passed in a mechanical manner without any pre-decisional or post-decisional hearing, infringing on his fundamental rights under the Constitution. He emphasized that procedural safeguards under Regulation 855 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations were not followed.
2. Abuse of Police Powers:
The petitioner accused the police of using surveillance regulations as a tool of harassment, alleging that respondent no. 5 acted with malice and ulterior motives.
3. Interpretation of Regulation 855:
Regulation 855 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations limits surveillance to individuals determined to be leading a life of crime. The petitioner contended that there was no credible evidence to justify his inclusion in this category.
Observations and Decision of the Court
The court, citing precedents from the Supreme Court in Govind v. State of M.P. (1975) and Prem Chand v. Union of India (1981), reiterated that inclusion in surveillance lists must be based on clear and credible evidence of a person’s dangerous conduct. The bench noted:
“Surveillance is confined to a limited class of citizens who are determined to lead a criminal life or whose antecedents reasonably suggest they will lead such a life.”
The judges highlighted that procedural safeguards are vital to prevent misuse of surveillance powers. They observed:
“The absence of an opportunity for the petitioner to defend himself amounts to a grave violation of principles of natural justice.”
The court concluded that the Superintendent of Police had erred in placing the petitioner on the Gunda List without adhering to proper procedure. Consequently, the order dated June 30, 2022, was quashed, and the Superintendent was directed to reconsider the matter after giving the petitioner an adequate opportunity to present his case.
