109th Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra2384611326259893 Tamil Nadu130261846941829 Delhi109140846943300 Gujarat40155281832023 Uttar Pradesh3370021787845 Karnataka3341811878471 Telangana3222410123339 West Bengal2710917348880 Andhra Pradesh2542213914292 Rajasthan2317417620497 Haryana1993414904290 Madhya Pradesh1665712481638 Assam15537984935 Bihar1433010251111 Odisha11956797273 Jammu and Kashmir92615567149 Punjab71404945183 Kerala6535370828 Chhatisgarh3526283514 Uttarakhand3305267246 Jharkhand3192217022 Goa203912078 Tripura177313241 Manipur14357930 Puducherry120061916 Himachal Pradesh110182510 Nagaland6733030 Chandigarh5234037 Arunachal Pradesh2871092 Mizoram2031430 Sikkim134710 Meghalaya113451
Nation Current Affairs 08 Feb 2018 Why personal info, a ...

Why personal info, asks Hyderabad High Court

Published Feb 8, 2018, 2:38 am IST
Updated Feb 8, 2018, 2:38 am IST
V. Raghunath, counsel appearing for the petitioner, told the court that there was no rowdy sheet against the petitioner.
Hyderabad High Court
 Hyderabad High Court

Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Wednesday expressed disapproval at the Telangana Police’s action of forcing a person to disclose personal details such as the names of his advocate, his PAN card broker and his concubine, under the pretext of conducting a survey.

Justice A.V. Sesha Sai, while dealing with a petition filed by Chirrabona Badrinath Yadav Bhadri, former corporator, member of the Telugu Desam Party, and President of the Greater Hyderabad wing of the BC Cell, asked what the police intended to do with the personal details being collected.


The judge asked the counsel appearing on behalf of the government to obtain an explanation from the Station House Officer of Marredpally and present it in court on Monday.

The petitioner urged the court to declare the action of the SHO of Marredpally of calling him to the police station and making him fill up the Sakala Nerasthula Samagra Survey form of offenders as illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Petitioner was pressurised to give info
V. Raghunath, counsel appearing for the petitioner, told the court that there was no rowdy sheet against the petitioner. Yet, he was summoned by the SHO on Jan 19, 2018, and his thumb impression and photographs were taken without his consent, at the insistence of the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the North Zone.


He said that the police authorities had pressurized the petitioner to disclose the names of his advocate, his pan broker and also his concubine, if he had any. He added that the actions of the police amounted to an infringement of the citizen’s fundamental rights.

The judge informed the counsel appearing for the government that seeking the name of a person’s advocate constituted a violation of the provisions of the Advocates Act.

He said that had the police authorities consulted with law officers before preparing the survey form, then such violations could have been avoided.


Location: India, Telangana, Hyderabad