Case Title: Jindal Kumar V. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
The Delhi High Court noted that it would be a major violation of a citizen's right to privacy to submit him to police examination, including the verification of personal papers, without a valid basis.
In response to a complaint from a complainant asking the Delhi Police to conduct an investigation into the proper identification of a private person after the two parties got into an argument, Justice Asha Menon made the comment. According to the petitioner's argument, the police were required to establish the genuine identity of the respondent in the Kalandra proceedings since he was using many names and aliases.
In order to investigate the existence of Adhaar, Voter, Driving, and Pan cards in varied names purportedly used by the respondent, the appeal asked the Delhi Police to be directed to do so. The term "Kalandra" refers to a notice given under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to a person who is suspected to break the peace, disturb the quiet of the public, or engage in any other unlawful conduct that could do so.
According to the provision, if an Executive Magistrate receives such a complaint and determines that there is sufficient justification for proceeding, he may order the person to demonstrate why he should not be required to sign a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for as long as the Magistrate deems appropriate—but not longer than one year.
The State, on the other hand, asserted that the petitioner was a regular complainant and that a kalandra had been taken against him. After a dispute arose over the respondent's refusal to provide the petitioner's wife access to the terrace, the kalandra was issued. Thus, it was argued, the respondent did not reside on the subject property.
To this, the petitioner's attorney objected that he wasn't a typical complainant, but he did acknowledge that a kalandra had been filed against both parties and was eventually resolved. However, the petitioner argued that nothing had been done about his complaint. The petition's lack of merit led to the following court order:
"Subjecting a citizen to police scrutiny including verification of his personal documents for no good reason, except on the whimsical demand of the petitioner would entail a serious invasion of the respondent's right to privacy."
As a result, the plea was rejected.