HC stays order to furnish tenant details
Tags:
The Madras high court on Wednesday stayed the proceedings of the city police commissioner dated March 3, 2012, which is going to lapse on May 1, ordering house owners to furnish full particulars of their tenants to the station house officer of their jurisdiction.
Passing further orders on PILs filed by Dr R.S. Sridhar and advocate S. Jim Raj Milton, a division bench of Chief Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Justice T.S. Sivagnanam posted the petitions for hearing after the summer vacation.
The bench had on March 29, while declining to suspend the operation of the March 3 order of the city police commissioner, directed the authorities not to take criminal action for violation of the order.
The petitioners sought to declare the order of the commissioner of police as violative of Article 14, 19 (1) (e) and (g) and 21 of the Constitution.
The impugned order has been passed purportedly for preservation of peace, public safety and maintenance of order, the petitioners contended.
However, the commissioner of police has failed to place on record any material to show that there was threat to peace, public safety and maintenance of order, they said.
He simply states that it has come to notice that anti-social elements in the guise of tenants were in occupation of various residential premises in the city posing danger to public tranquility and peace, the claimed.
The order further stated that any person contravening the order shall be punishable under section 188 of IPC.
The impugned order categorises the residents of Chennai into two, the house owners and the tenants and attaches a stigma on tenants that they were anti-social elements posing danger to public tranquility and peace. The categorisation was not only irrational but also unconstitutional.
The impugned order is violative of Article 19 (1) (e) of the Constitution, which guarantees to every citizen the right to reside in any part of India.
Merely because a person resides in rented premises, the law cannot presume that he has less rights than others.
It also offends the right to privacy and the right to dignity of persons residing in rented premises by subjecting them to personal scrutiny without any reason whatsoever, they said.
Post new comment