Allowed

Tanikonda Chiranjeevi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC30 Mar 2015PIL/304/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that imposing a blanket restriction on carrying identity documents during night hours in Vijayawada violated fundamental rights. The court declared such restrictions illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, and 22, emphasizing the absence of specific guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Court confirmed interim order, declared restriction on carrying identity documents during night hours illegal and violative of fundamental rights, and closed the PIL pending issuance of specific guide

Tanikonda Chiranjeevi, Vs The State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶7

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.304 OF 2014

¶8

DATED: 30.03.2015

¶9

Between:

¶10

Tanikonda Chiranjeevi

¶11

… Petitioner

¶12

and

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh and others

¶14

… Respondents

¶15

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA

¶16

AND

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶18

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.304 of 2014

¶19

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)

¶20

This public interest litigation has been filed asking for a declaration that the action of the second respondent and his subordinate staff imposing unreasonable restrictions on the residents of Vijayawada City, outsiders, workers and all other blue colour workmen such as carrying identity cards for moving in the night hours under the guise of special drive is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(d)(e) and (g), 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

The grievance of the petitioner is that the police authorities have taken a decision to ask anyone and everyone to carry identity documents while moving in Vijayawada city during night hours. If anyone fails to do so, the suspects would be taken to police station. The aforesaid decision is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(d)(e) and (g), 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

¶22

After noticing the aforesaid fact and hearing the learned counsel, we do not find any reason to put such restriction which absolutely offends the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(d)(e) and (g) of the Constitution of India. We are of the view that anyone and everyone cannot be suspected person for which one has to carry identity document during night hours. The area has not been identified to be susceptible to any serious law and order problem. This type of restriction, in our view, is unreasonable. We are also of the view that in the absence of any guidelines, the Government should not give free hand to the police in the name of maintaining law and order situation at all, which tend to harass the citizen of India and also the local residents of Vijayawada city.

¶23

We therefore close the public interest litigation confirming the interim order passed by this Court earlier, until and unless the State

¶24

Government comes out with specific guidelines with regard to maintaining law and order situation in the city of Vijayawada, during night time.

¶25

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶26

K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

¶27

30^th MARCH, 2015.

¶28

SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶29

kvni

Tanikonda Chiranjeevi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanikonda Chiranjeevi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swamy Srinivasanda Yogi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary

M. Kranthi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by Chief Secretary

Ballavarapu Hari Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

M. Narsing Rao Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Mohammed Haji S/o. Late Mohammed Zahoor, Vs The State of Telangana

U.VenkataRamana, Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

K.Chandra Mohan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Rajeshwar Reddy , S/o. K.Bhooma Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana