Suresh Kumar K S @ Aji KS vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

Petitioner is the leader of a political party in the Idukki District. He seeks directions of a general nature, which includes matters relating to lapses in protecting sensitive information in the police database. The petitioner has sought directions to the respondents to protect the police database and to take all steps including practices, procedures and reasonable security measures to safeguard the data from reaching the hands of certain anti-nationals.

According to the petitioner, a Civil Police Officer by the name Anas of Karivannoor Police Station, was allegedly found revealing confidential information from the police database to certain anti-national forces which included personal information of leaders of opposing political organizations. Petitioner alleged that the police database, which is a statewide data system, including sensitive confidential information about prominent persons, can easily be leaked out and despite a police officer divulging the information illegally, only disciplinary action was initiated against him.  Petitioner has made sweeping claims that sensitive information gathered by the police is falling into the hands of terrorists and those who exhort the killing of persons of other faiths. Petitioner also alleges that a secret WhatsApp group was operated amongst a few officers from a particular religion under the name 'Pachavelicham', and indulging in supporting anti-national activities and when information about this group surfaced, he filed a representation as Exhibit P2.  Subsequently another group by the name 'Pachavelicham 2.0' came up and this group is also suspected of leaking information about police actions to enable the culprits to escape. Petitioner further alleges that the presence of a group inside the police force leaking information is detrimental to the safety and security of the public and that the incidents pointed out were only the tip of the iceberg.  Petitioner asserts that the plight of the security of the citizenry is in the hands of the police and when they themselves are joining hands with anti-nationals to ensure that the system is subverted requires a full-fledged enquiry and appropriate action. 3.  A statement has been filed by the third respondent pursuant to the direction of the court wherein it has been stated that Sri. Anas, a Civil Police Officer of Karivannoor Police Station was found to have sent messages of a religious, political and communal nature and that he had also downloaded certain particulars of vehicles from the official application named ‘Crime Drive’ and shared it with one of the accused in Crime No.1813/2021 of Thodupuzha Police Station. The third respondent has also stated that the errant police officer was terminated from service with effect from 27.12.2021 and also that the said incident did not amount to any data theft as alleged since that officer was never entrusted with the safekeeping of any data by the department and also that he had not invaded the database of any computer system without the knowledge of the administrator or owner. Further, the registration particulars of the vehicles are available in the websites of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Department or Parivahan Software and his misconduct was the case of misusing his official capacity for which disciplinary action itself was initiated.

In a statement filed on 18.03.2022, the third respondent has pleaded that though initially all police personnel were given access to the application ‘Crime Drive’, later, the access was restricted to only four police officers. It is further stated that the allegation regarding the WhatsApp group 'Pachavelicham' operated by an alleged Islamist Radical WhatsApp group of Muslim Police Personnel, has not been reported till date and that though there were rumours of such a group, no evidence could be gathered in connection with the use of that WhatsApp group among the police personnel in the districts. It was specifically mentioned that there was no suspicious incident at Kanjiramattom as alleged by the petitioner and that the allegation of police personnel joining hands with anti-nationals is baseless.

Subsequently, the third respondent filed a report as well, stating that there are no incidents of data theft, as alleged by the petitioner, that security audits are being conducted periodically, and that the application used by the police force is monitored and managed by the respective crime records office. The third respondent has reported that the police department keeps vigil about the likely infiltration of religious or radical elements into the department.

I have heard the arguments of Sri. K.R.Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. M. C. Ashi, the learned Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner pleads about the threats of data leakage from the police department. He bases his allegations on certain information leaked by a Civil Police Officer. The department’s enquiry revealed that it was a stray incident, and there has not been any leakage of sensitive information from the police database. The contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the leakage of sensitive information are based on assumptions and surmises. They are also vague and without any specific material.

Writ petitions cannot be decided on the basis of vague and obscure information. Reliefs based on allegations which are ambiguous cannot be granted by the Court, especially under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As the police machinery exists for the very maintenance of law and order and for the protection of the citizenry, they are competent and capable of protecting the information available with them from being leaked out to outsiders. In the absence of any tangible material, the said machinery needs no direction from this Court to protect its database as they are competent and well-informed about the need for such protective measures. Since the directions sought for by the petitioner are not based on any real or substantial material and also since the police force of the State is well equipped with sufficient expertise to protect themselves even in the absence of any direction from this Court, this writ petition is devoid of any merit.

Hence this writ petition is dismissed.