Vivek Agarwal,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Upendra Upadhyay, Siya Ram Verma and Sri Shiv Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vinod Diwaker, learned A.A.G. for the State assisted by Sri Deepak Mishra and Ms. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A. and Sri Vinay Saran, learned Amicus assisted by Sri Saumitra Dwivedi.
(2.) These three petitions raise a common issue of violation of Right to Privacy on account of list of top-10 criminals displayed at different Police Stations namely, Khuldabad, District-Prayagraj, Police Station-Bithoor, District-Kanpur Nagar and at Police Station-Karchhana, District-Prayagraj. Brief facts of each petition 1. Petitioners in C.M.W.P. No. 10974 of 2020 are real brothers engaged in business and claim to be income tax payees. They are aggrieved with a list published at Police Station-Khuldabad, showing their names as top-10 criminals for the year 2020. Petitioner no. 1- Jeeshan @ Jaanu is at serial no. 3 and petitioner no. 2 at the top of list of top-10 criminals at Police Station-Khuldabad, (Annexure-2) to the writ petition. Petitioner no. 1 is also aggrieved with the opening of his history sheet on 20.08.2020. (1A) Petitioners grievance is that they are relatives of Ex-Member of Parliament from Allahabad Constituency and due to political vendetta, they are being harassed by the police authorities by illegally publishing their names in the list of top-10 criminals of Police Station-Khuldabad. (1B) As per the contention of petitioner no. 1, police has shown nine cases against him, out of which, he has yet not been charge-sheeted in four cases while two cases are lodged at the behest of Prayagraj Development Authority regarding irregularities in the constructions. (1C) Case of petitioner no. 2 is that in the year 2007, three cases were registered against him simultaneously at Police Station-Dhoomanganj, District-Prayagraj. (1D) Vide order dated 29.10.2013 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Allahabad, petitioner no. 2 has been acquitted in Case Crime No. 287 of 2007. In another Case Crime No. 120 of 2007, he is on bail, granted by the Court of Sessions Judge, Allahabad while in third case, i.e. Case Crime No. 113 of 2007, he was granted bail by the High Court. (1E) Two new cases have been registered against petitioner no. 2 in the year 2019 and 2020 purely on political motivation. In one of the cases, he has been granted anticipatory bail while in another, police authorities have been restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner. Another fresh case has been registered against him in 2020 at Police Station-Khuldabad under Section 27 of the Arms Act. (1F) It is submitted that only one case is registered against each of the petitioners at Police Station-Khuldabad and yet on the basis of a single case their names have been included in the list of top-10 criminals of Police Station-Khuldabad. (1G) It is petitioner's contention that the act of the authorities of State is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as Right to Life includes the right to live with human dignity. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India , 1978 AIR(SC) 59, it is pointed out that Right to Life also means that the State cannot curtail the dignity of a citizen in an arbitrary manner. (1H) Petitioner's contention is that personal enmity is being taken to illogical ends, so as to harass them by violating their fundamental rights and malafidely declaring them to be top-10 criminals of Police Station-Khuldabad, so as to tarnish their image and dent their dignity in public and harass their entire family. In above backdrop, a prayer has been made for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to delete the name of the petitioners from the list of top-10 criminals of Police Station-Khuldabad, District-Prayagraj with a further prayer to direct the police authorities to close the history sheet of petitioner no. 1 and not to harass them. Brief facts in C.M.W.P. No. 13521of 2020 2. Petitioner claims himself to be an Advocate, practicing at District-Kanpur Dehat. Petitioner's contention is that he being a legal professional, appears for litigants facing criminal prosecution, as a result of which, police personnel posted at Police Station-Bithoor, District-Kanpur Nagar have developed enmity. This enmity became aggravated when petitioner refused to support the brother of his opponent in the election of Gram Pradhan, Gram Panchayat-Baikunthpur, District-Kanpur Nagar. On 11.03.2018, an FIR was registered at the behest of petitioner against his rivals as Case Crime No. 66 of 2018, in which his opponents have been charge-sheeted. (2A). According to the petitioner, he is being falsely implicated in different cases by including his name in the list of top-10 criminals of Police Station-Bithoor, District-Kanpur Nagar, (Annexure 1), where his name is mentioned at serial no. 8. (2B). Petitioner's contention is that he has nothing to do with criminal activities yet he is being falsely implicated. It is submitted that in pending Case Crime No. 64 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, cognizance has already been taken and matter is pending before the Court of learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar, yet on the basis of a single case, inclusion of the petitioner's name in the list of top-10 criminals of Police Station-Bithoor, District-Kanpur Nagar is arbitrary and illegal. Brief facts in C.M.W.P. No. 14300 of 2020
(3.) Petitioner's contention is that he is into the business of a concrete and sand, his firm is registered, along with GST number. Petitioner claims to be an income tax payee. (3A). It is submitted that out of rivalry between two groups, false FIR was lodged in the year 2011, in which final report was submitted on 29.08.2011, discharging petitioner and final report was accepted by the Court. Petitioner's case is that again in the year 2019, a false case has been registered against him and his entire family has been roped in under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, and also under Section 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Police Station-Karchhana, District-Prayagraj. In this case, Investigating Officer has given a clean chit to the petitioner and final report too has been accepted by the Court, yet another FIR was registered against him on 27.05.2020 under Section 379 IPC , Sections 4 and 21of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and Rules 3, 57, 7 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. (3B). It is submitted that High Court has been pleased to quash the FIR against the petitioner and others in regard to all offences except offence under Section 379 IPC, as can be verified from order passed in C.M.W.P. No. 6027 of 2020. Placing reliance on said judgment, it is submitted that name of the petitioner has been wrongly included at serial no. 4 in the list of top-10 criminals pasted at Police Station-Karchhana, District-Prayagraj, a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-13, to the petition. (3C). It is submitted that petitioner had sought information as to on what grounds his name has been included, but information sought under Right to Information Act, 2005 has not been provided. It is submitted that no notice under Section 41 Cr.P.C. has been issued to the petitioner, yet on account of certain election rivalry and political affiliations, petitioner has been falsely included in the list of top-10 criminals. (3D). Petitioner's case is that from 2011 to 2020, only three cases have been registered against him, yet in violation of his fundamental rights, his name is being scandalized and propagated without following procedure established by law. Petitioner has not yet been convicted in any of the criminal cases and therefore, a prayer has been made to remove/delete his name at serial no. 4 from the list of top-10 criminals with a further prayer to take action against respondent no. 4 directing the authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings against the Station House Officer for arbitrarily and malafidely including his name in the list of top-10 criminals. (3E). It is submitted that on inquiry, police authorities are not in a position to disclose as to what is the criteria for preparation of list of top 10 criminals of a police station or of district and under what authority of law it is being published. (3F). A common thread running through all the three petitions is so called action of the police authorities in displaying names of the petitioners along with others though they are undertrials, having different vocations like business, advocacy or politics, but their image is being tarnished and dignity dented by the police by canvassing their names as top-10 criminals of the district or the police station concerned, as the case may be. (3G). This act of the respondent authorities is assailed on the ground that publication/displaying/disclosing of the names of petitioner infringes upon right to privacy and right to live with dignity which brings disrepute. ;