The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that inclusion in a police surveillance list, commonly termed a 'Gunda List', cannot be sustained after an individual has been acquitted of all criminal charges. The judgment emphasizes that continued retention of such a designation without review violates the right to dignity and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Govind Malvi, was listed in a surveillance register maintained by the Superintendent of Police, Chhindwara, under the label of a 'Gunda List'. This listing was based on prior criminal allegations against him, which were later fully adjudicated and resulted in his acquittal. Despite this legal clearance, his name remained on the list without any formal review or justification.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was employed as a Supervisor under a private contractor in Chhindwara
- He was named in a criminal case, the details of which are not specified in the judgment, but which concluded in his acquittal
- The acquittal was final and no appeal or revision was pending against it
- On 05.03.2021, the petitioner submitted a written representation to the Superintendent of Police, Chhindwara, requesting deletion of his name from the surveillance register
- No response or action was taken on the representation for over five years
- The petitioner had no pending criminal proceedings, no conviction, and no ongoing investigation at the time of filing the writ petition
Procedural History
- 05.03.2021: Petitioner filed representation with Superintendent of Police, Chhindwara, seeking removal from 'Gunda List'
- No response received for over five years
- 2026: Writ Petition No. 8376 of 2026 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
- 31.03.2026: Hearing conducted before Justice B.P. Sharma
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Immediate deletion of his name from the 'Gunda List'
- A direction to the Superintendent of Police to decide his representation dated 05.03.2021 within a stipulated time
The Parties' Positions / Positions Before This Court
The petitioner contended that retention of his name on the list after acquittal was arbitrary, mala fide, and violative of his fundamental rights. He argued that such listings stigmatize individuals and affect employment, social standing, and personal liberty.
The State, through the Government Advocate, did not contest the factual basis of the petitioner’s claim. No evidence was produced to justify continued inclusion. The State did not oppose the prayer for a direction to decide the representation.
The Legal Issue
Can a person’s name remain on a police surveillance list after acquittal in a criminal case, without any fresh assessment or due process?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the principle that an acquittal restores the individual’s legal status to that of an innocent person. He cited State of U.P. v. Raj Narain and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to argue that continued stigmatization through unofficial surveillance lists violates the right to reputation and personal liberty under Article 21. He emphasized that such lists operate without statutory basis, transparency, or review mechanism, rendering them inherently arbitrary.
For the Respondent/State
The State did not file a counter-affidavit or present any material to justify the continued listing. The Government Advocate conceded that no valid ground existed to retain the petitioner’s name and did not oppose the prayer for a direction to decide the representation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the petitioner had been acquitted of all charges and that no subsequent criminal activity or credible threat was alleged to justify his continued inclusion in the surveillance register. The Court noted that the State’s failure to respond to the representation for over five years amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.
"The continued retention of the petitioner’s name in the surveillance register, after acquittal and without any fresh evaluation, is a clear violation of his right to personal liberty and reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution."
The Court emphasized that while police may maintain intelligence records for legitimate law enforcement purposes, such records must not operate as permanent stigmas against individuals who have been judicially cleared. The absence of any statutory framework governing these lists further compounds their arbitrariness.
The Court declined to directly order deletion, noting that the matter required administrative consideration. However, it held that the State’s inaction was indefensible and that the petitioner was entitled to a timely decision on his representation.
The Verdict
The writ petition was disposed of with the direction that the Superintendent of Police, Chhindwara, decide the representation dated 05.03.2021 within four months. The Court explicitly stated that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim for deletion, but mandated a reasoned decision within the stipulated timeframe. No monetary relief or costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Stigma Without Due Process Is Unconstitutional
- Practitioners must now argue that any police record retaining names of acquitted persons without review violates Article 21
- Representation under Article 226 is a viable remedy where administrative inaction persists beyond a reasonable period
- Courts may not require proof of harm; mere retention of a stigmatizing label post-acquittal suffices to trigger constitutional scrutiny
Administrative Silence Is Not a Decision
- Failure to respond to a representation for over five years constitutes a violation of the duty to act fairly
- Petitioners may now seek mandatory directions for timely disposal of such representations, even if the outcome is left to the authority
- A four-month deadline sets a new benchmark for administrative responsiveness in similar cases
Surveillance Lists Require Legal Basis
- Police surveillance lists lacking statutory backing are vulnerable to constitutional challenge
- Authorities must establish objective criteria for inclusion and periodic review mechanisms
- Acquittal must trigger an automatic review process, not a discretionary one
