ORDER: 1. The petitioner is prisoner No 4952 undergoing imprisonment is the Central Prison, Cannanore. He requests that the police and other State authorities may be restrained from publishing his photographs in public places. According to him, this action is illegal and violative of his fundamental rights. In view of his expectation of immediate release from jail, he feels that the publication of his photographs will adversely affect his future life. 2. On behalf of the State, I had the advantage of hearing able arguments on questions of fact and law from the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Law Society of India represented by Advocates M/s. K.A. Abdul Salam, M.P. Krishnan Nair and C.A. Sebastian entered appearance and Mr. Abdul Salam ably assisted me be presenting the legal and factual aspects which involve public importance. 3. The petitioner is convicted in three cases, namely, C.C.I 10/84 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hosdurg, SC.23/84 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Manjeri and C.C. 264/84 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Talipramaba. In the first case, he was convicted for offences punishable under Ss.457 , 461 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced top rigorous imprisonment for three years, while in the second, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years, for the offence under S.395 of the Indian Penal Code, and in the third, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offences underSs.457 and 461 of the Indian Penal Code. He is said to be involved in other cases also. Crime No.134/83 of the K.R. Nagar Police Station, Karnataka has been registered against him under S.395 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of a motor vehicle MYH 8968. He is said to be involved in three other major burglary cases, Crime No. 119/83 of the Sreekantapuram Police Station and two other cases. 4. Photographs of certain persons were circulated among taxi drivers in the context of a large number of crimes against taxi drivers including murder. One Panakkal Chandran in said to be a close associate of the petitioner. A similar petition has been filed by him in M.C.41/85 of this Court against publishing his photographs. 4. Photographs of certain persons were circulated among taxi drivers in the context of a large number of crimes against taxi drivers including murder. One Panakkal Chandran in said to be a close associate of the petitioner. A similar petition has been filed by him in M.C.41/85 of this Court against publishing his photographs. After obtaining an interim order on the basis of which his photos were withdrawn, it was pointed out by the Directer of public Prosecutions that subsequently he fled justice and thereafter two identical crimes involving murders of taxi drivers were reported. In the three Southern Stales of Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, according to the Director of Public Prosecutions, similar offences have become very frequent. To refer, to a few, in Crime No.16/81 Car No. PYP 6959 was stolen from Ernakulam and its driver Babu was murdered. Car KLA 5125 was hired by three youngsters and the driver Kunhappu was murdered. Similarly Car MED 5578 was stolen, and the driver P. Subramonian was murdered. Again, Car KLQ 8939 was stolen, and the body of the driver was found at Poonjar. Car KLM 38 was stolen and the dead body of the driver Balan was found at Parappanagadi. Again Car KLE 5174 was stolen and the driver Sukumaran was murdered/. Likewise Car KLQ 7840 was stolen and driver Muhammed was murdered. The same fate happened to Varghese when the Car KLA 3203 was driven by him. One Thankappan who was the driver of KLV 2949 was murdered after theft of the car. It is said that a large gang of inter-State criminals is involved in such cases and all of them belong to the age group between 23 and 35. It is the further case of the State that stolen cars were being used for committing further offences including idol thefts, bank robbery, timer smuggling etc. The present petitioner, Panakkal Chandran alias Mathew and one Miranda are said to be reasonably suspected as members of this gang. C.C.110/84 in which the petitioner is convicted is a case of burglary in which a stolen car was used. Panakkal Chandran is also said to be involved in that crime. 5. It is in this background that the police decided to circulate the photographs through the possible group victims at different places with a view to alert them and save their lives. Panakkal Chandran is also said to be involved in that crime. 5. It is in this background that the police decided to circulate the photographs through the possible group victims at different places with a view to alert them and save their lives. Circulation is said to be through the association of taxi drivers. The counsel on behalf of the Law Society of India put the State to proof of the involvement of the petitioner in the above -said cases as a condition precedent to justifying the alleged preventive action. But it has to be noted that the petitioner is not being tried for any offence. In this proceedings we are only concerned with the question whether the preventive action of the State through the police machinery is justified or not. The fact that there are at least three convictions against the petitioner is evident from the submissions of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the letter received from the Superintendent Central Prison. In this proceedings, we are not deciding the correctness of disputed questions of fact. As earlier stated by me, the subsistence of three convictions against the petitioner is not disputed. The other cases are only pending investigation. In this proceedings the State cannot be asked to place concrete evidence substantiating the involvement of the petitioner as a condition precedent to justification of the preventive action. For the present purpose, this court will have to accept reasonable suspicion entertained against the petitioners regarding his involvement. Arguments will have to be appreciated in this background. 6. What is involved is a conflict between State interest and liberty of the citizen. Liberty of individual is no more than what law gives him and it is also subject to reasonable restrictions on grounds of public interest, morality, decency etc. as provided in the Constitution. Police Officers are entitled to enforce reasonable restrictions on those rights no less than to which honesty law enforcement and preventive measures demand. The delicate and difficult task of the courts is to balance the conflicting interests. There must be reason able restrictions in the exercise of the executive powers also. In given cases executive powers could extend of even to total prohibition of the rights of the individuals. The delicate and difficult task of the courts is to balance the conflicting interests. There must be reason able restrictions in the exercise of the executive powers also. In given cases executive powers could extend of even to total prohibition of the rights of the individuals. In order to persuade this Court to prevent publication of the photographs, the petitioners will have to show that any of his fundamental rights or any inner common law rights have been violated or that there was abuse of power in resorting to the preventive measures. It is the responsibility of every civilised government to establish and ordain a peaceful society free from transgressions of law. Powers of the police and the extant of police functioning require a lot of executive decisions. It will be necessary to appreciate the powers of the State and the police to take preventive measure. Apart from the specific statutory provisions, it is the basic duly of the police to prevent crimes. Not only bringing offenders to justice, but also prevension are basic police functions. This position has been put beyond double by judicial pronouncements. In Duncan v. Jones Duncan v. Jones (1936) 1 KB 218 it was observed that “it does not require authority to say that it is the duty of the police to prevent crime”. Similarly in R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 1 S.C.C. 471 : A.I.R.1973 SC.157 the Supreme Court of India categorically stated that “the police have a duty to prevent commission of crimes”. In the well-known decision in Govind v. State of M.P. Govind v. State of M.P. 1975 2 S.C.C. 148:A.I.R. 1975 S.C.1378 it was held that it is basic function of the police to prevent crimes. This principle has been laid down in various judicial pronouncements. The theory of sovereignty of State, whether the Lockian theory or Hobbes or Austin, is that an orderly society is the basic attribute of good government. Without law and order, the liberties of citizens cannot be meaningful. Therefore it is evident that prevention of crimes is basic to the police power of the State. It may not be possible for the legislature to lay down all the circumstances under which such power is to be exercised or to provide absolute guidelines in all possible cases. Without law and order, the liberties of citizens cannot be meaningful. Therefore it is evident that prevention of crimes is basic to the police power of the State. It may not be possible for the legislature to lay down all the circumstances under which such power is to be exercised or to provide absolute guidelines in all possible cases. As observed by Cressy and Sutherland in Criminology at page 390 “if police brought all suspects to the courts, the court will have no time for their work; police discretion will always be with us”. Those who commit crimes cannot seek shelter under law to prevent effective policing. In Wolf v. Colorado Wolf v. Colorado 338 US 25, the position has been summed up; “it gives the individual no more than what the law gives to him; and the police officer no less than to which honest law enforcement is entitled”. 7. Now we shall examine the statutory provisions which enable the police to publish photographs of persons who are considered dangerous. Under S.149 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the duty of every police officer to interpose for the purpose of preventing and actually prevent the commission of any cognizable offence. S.151 of the Code makes is the duty of every police officer knowing of a design to commit any cognizable offence to arrest the person so designing without warrant and without orders from a Magistrate, if commission of the offence cannot otherwise be prevented. These are instances of curtailment of valuable fundamental right in the interest of public order. Similarly S.29(b) of the Kerala Police Act empowers the police officers to take all reasonable measures for prevention of crimes. It rather makes their duty also. This is intended to protect the society against criminal enterprises coming from various sources. Effective discharge of that duty will have to be enforced in order to safeguard a peaceful society. S.3 of the Identification of Prisoners Act authorities measurements and photographs of convicted persons or persons ordered to give security being taken. S.4 authorises the same even in the case of certain non-convicted persons. S.5 authorises magistrates to order measurements or photographs of convicts habitual offenders or suspects, evidently it is not for mere preservation. It must evidently be for being used for some permissible purposes. S.4 authorises the same even in the case of certain non-convicted persons. S.5 authorises magistrates to order measurements or photographs of convicts habitual offenders or suspects, evidently it is not for mere preservation. It must evidently be for being used for some permissible purposes. There are other previsions of law like the Habitual Offenders Act and the Indian Police Act etc. to which detailed reference is not necessary because even the provisions mentioned by me earlier will be sufficient to justify the exercise of the power challenged in this case. Within the framework of law, well-known methods of crime prevention include data collection, intelligence, preventive arrest, surveillance and even computerisation. 8. Now we will have to consider whether any of the fundamental rights or other common law rights of the petitioner is likely to be infringed by the publication of photographs in public places and if so whether it will come within the reasonable restriction clause or State interest theory. In this case what the State wants to do is only to give warning to the possible group victims against the dangers that they are likely to suffer at the hands of the petitioners if they are not careful. That is only what honest law enforcement demands and what is necessary in the interest of the society. Police reasonably suspects that the petitioner and his gang are habitually engaged in using force and even murdering taxi drivers for committing theft of taxi cars. By publishing the photographs She police wants to alert the taxi drivers that here is a man with whom they will have to be careful. The question is whether such publication affects his rights and if so whether it will ourweigh the public interest that is sought to be achieved. It cannot be said that any right of the petitioner has been violated, because there is no right against photography nor the rights under Articles 19 , 20 or 21 of the Constitution infringed. The case of the petitioner has no foundation whatever, in law, to enjoy an immunity of the kind claimed. I was told by the Director of Public Prosecutions about the instance of the photographs of a maniac killer by name Raman Raghavan who was suspected to have murdered about 20 or 21 persons, being published for general information without being frowned. I was told by the Director of Public Prosecutions about the instance of the photographs of a maniac killer by name Raman Raghavan who was suspected to have murdered about 20 or 21 persons, being published for general information without being frowned. It is well established that even a fundamental right can be subject to restrictions in public interest. 9. The first question that was focussed for consideration was whether the publication of the photographs will offend Art.20(3) of the Constitution, which says that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Giving thumb impressions or impressions of foot or palm or fingers or specimen handwritings or showing parts of the body by way of identification are not included in the expression “to be a witness”. That expression means imparting knowledge in respect of relevant facts by an oral statement or a statement in writing, made or given in court or otherwise. Photography or exposure of any God given feature of a man's physiognomy will not be violative of Art.20(3). An element of compulsion or communication is required to make it self-incriminative and thereby testimonial compulsion. “To be a witness” in its grammatical sense means giving oral testimony in court. But by decided cases the expression now bears a wider meaning namely, bearing testimony in court or out of court by a person accused of an offence, orally or in writing. Further the person must have stood in the character of an accased person at the time he made the statement. It is not enough that he became an accused at any time after the statement had been made. These positions of law were declared by a Full Court judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Karthi Kalu State of Bombay v. Karthi Kalu (1962)3 S.C.R. 10 : A.I.R. 1961 SC 1808. That decision held thai photography, finger printing and caking specimen handwritings are not against Law. A man is competent to prove his own crime. The restriction is only that he cannot be compelled to do so. Truth is not endangered where compulsion is for exhibition of body or of any identifying marks on it for the purpose of comparison. Pakhar Singh v. The State Pakhar Singh v. The State A.I.R. 1958 Punjab 294 is also authority for the position that photography is justified. The restriction is only that he cannot be compelled to do so. Truth is not endangered where compulsion is for exhibition of body or of any identifying marks on it for the purpose of comparison. Pakhar Singh v. The State Pakhar Singh v. The State A.I.R. 1958 Punjab 294 is also authority for the position that photography is justified. Therefore there is no point in contending that the publishing of the photographs will infringe the rights conferred under Art.20(3) of the Constitution. 10. The other fundamental rights canvassed before me are those under Articles 19(1) , and 21 of the Constitution. Under Article 19(1), the rights include freedom of speech and expression, right to assemble peaceably and without arms, to form association or unions, to move freely throughout the territory of India, to reside and settle in any part of territory of India, to practise any profession etc. These are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, decency, morality etc. Article 21 provides for a prohibition against deprivation of life or personal liberty except according to procedure establish by law. In dealing with a fundamental right such as the right to free movement or personal liberty, they only can constitute an infringement which is both direct as well as tangible. Under the cover of such freedoms the Constitution markers would never have intended to protext mere personal sensitiveness. It is true that the term “personal liberty” is used in Art.21 as a compendious term which include the varieties of rights that go to make up personal liberties of man other than those covered by the several clauses of Art.19(1). Article 19(1) covers particular species or attributes of that freedom whereas Art.21 takes in and comprises the residue, the Preamble of the Constitution shows that it is designated to assume the dignity of the individual and therefore all those cherished human values as the means of ensuring his full evelopment of evolution. Those rights many include the right to life with dignity and reputation. Even a convict undergoing imprisonment is not denuded of his fundamental rights except those that cannot be availed of as result of incarceration. We are not concerned with those aspects in this case. Those rights many include the right to life with dignity and reputation. Even a convict undergoing imprisonment is not denuded of his fundamental rights except those that cannot be availed of as result of incarceration. We are not concerned with those aspects in this case. What we arc concerned with is only whether the publication of the photographs with the warning will in any way infringe the fundamental rights or other common law rights and whether the resonable restriction clause or State interest theory will be transgressed. 11. Article 21 contemplates the procedure established by law for deprevention of life or personal liberty. In (1973) 1 S.C.C. 471 : A.I.R. 1973 SC.157 the question was whether the tapping of a telephone conversation of a citizen will amount to interference with his fundamental rights. The Supreme Court held that the telephone conversation of an innocent citizen will be protected by courts against wrongful or high handed interference. But such a protection was held not available to the guilty citizen against the efforts of the police to vindicate the law and prevent corruption of public servants. Courts will not tolerate safeguards for the protection of the citizen to be imperilled by permitting the police to proceed by unlawful or irregular methods. At the same time the reasonable restriction in public interest will be protected also. As held in Narendra Kumar v. Union of India Narendra Kumar v. Union of India 1960 S.L.J. 214: A.I.R. 1960 SC.430 it is reasonable to think that the makers of the Constitution considered the word ‘restriction’ to be sufficiently wide enough to save laws inconsistent with Art. 19(1), or even taking away the rights conferred by the said Article, provided the inconsistency or taking away is reasonable in the interests of the different matters mentioned in that clause. The word ‘restriction’ was held in appropriate cases to include total prohibition also. The contention that a law prohibiting exercise of a fundamental rights is in no case saved was rejected in that case. But courts are given a warning that when restriction reaches the stage of prohibition, special care has to be taken to see that the test of reasonableness is satisfied on the principle that the greater the restriction the need of strict scrutiny by the court is more. But courts are given a warning that when restriction reaches the stage of prohibition, special care has to be taken to see that the test of reasonableness is satisfied on the principle that the greater the restriction the need of strict scrutiny by the court is more. In applying the test of reasonableness, the court has to view the question in the facts and circumstances of each case, the nature of the evil that is sought to be remedied and the ratio of the harm caused to individual citizens by the proposed remedy to the beneficial effect reasonably expect to result to the general public. It may also be necessary to consider whether the action is more than what is necessary in the interests of the general public. In the decision in Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra (1961) 3 S.C.R. 423 :A.I.R.1961 SC. 884 the Supreme Court held that both clauses (2) and (3) of Art. 19 give power to the legislature to make laws placing reasonable restrictions on the rights conferred under Art.19 among other things, in the interest of public order. Public order has to be maintained in advance in order to ensure it. Therefore it is competent to enact a law permitting the appropriate authority to take anticipatory action of place anticipatory restrictions upon particular kinds of acts for the purpose of maintaining public order. Though the right to liberty is valuable it has to be subjected to reasonable restrictions in the larger public interest which should be the paramount consideration. Rights and liberties under Articles 19 and 21 cannot be unrestricted in the interests of a peaceful, orderly and civilized society which is the duty of Government to establish. Where rights and liberties of individuals come into conflict with each other or affect the interest of the society, the question of restriction must naturally enter for the purpose of balancing interest. That is why preventive detention is upheld under Art.21. Even sanctified rights under Articles 19 and 21 are bound to give way when larger public interests are involved. 12. In the leading case of privacy, (1975) 2 S.C.C. 148 : A.I.R. 1975 SC.1378 three propositions have been set out. In paragraph 10 it was held that prevention of crime is a basic police duty. Even sanctified rights under Articles 19 and 21 are bound to give way when larger public interests are involved. 12. In the leading case of privacy, (1975) 2 S.C.C. 148 : A.I.R. 1975 SC.1378 three propositions have been set out. In paragraph 10 it was held that prevention of crime is a basic police duty. Paragraph 22 of that decision said that even the right of privacy will be subject to counter-vailing considerations of State interest. At paragraph 33, it was observed that surveillance has to be upheld. Privacy, unlike in the U.S. is not a fundamental right in India. Under Art.21 the right of privacy could be said to be only a pervasive right. It may be a right emanating from the bundle to rights envisaged by Art.21. Since 1963 it has developed as an evolved doctrine which has to be built up by case law. In the U.S., by amendments of the Constitutions, right to privacy, obtained constitutional recognition. The first Indian decision in this line is Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1963 SC. 1295: (1963)2 Crl. L.J.329. One of the questions that came up for consideration in that decision was whether the freedom guaranteed under Art.19(1) (d) of the Constitution to move freely through out the territory of India is infringed by a watch being kept over the movements of a suspect by police. The answer was in the negative. The Supreme Court added that Art.21 providing that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law has no relevance in the context since the right of privacy is not a guaranteed right under our Constitution. Therefore attempts to ascertain movements of an individuals which is merely a manner in which privacy is invaded was held to be not an infringement of a fundamental right guaranteed under Part III. 13. Right to move implies nothing more than right to locomotion. In that context “freely”, would only mean that the freedom to move is without restriction and absolute subject to valid laws. 13. Right to move implies nothing more than right to locomotion. In that context “freely”, would only mean that the freedom to move is without restriction and absolute subject to valid laws. In that decision it was observed that by knocking at the door or by being aroused from sleep the right of free locomotion is not impeded or prejudiced in any manner and the feeling of psychological inhibitation against right of movement also cannot be accepted, freedom guaranteed under Art.19(1) (d) was held to have reference only to something tangible or physical and not to the imponderable effect on the mind cf a person which might guide his action in the matter of his movement. The self-same questions were considered in A.I.R. 1975 SC. 1378: (1975) 3 SCC 946 where certain provisions of the M.P. Police Regulations made by the Government under the Police Act providing for surveillance of individuals leading lives of crimes was challenged as offending Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution. In that decision also it was laid down by the Supreme Court that there is no constitutional right of privacy in India as provided by amendments in the U.S. Constitution. The principles finally laid down in that decision are: “Depending on the character and antecedents of the persons subjected to surveillance as also the objects and the limitation under which surveillance is made, it cannot be said surveillance by domiciliary visits would always be unreasonable restriction upon the right of privacy. Assuming that the fundamental rights explicitly guaranteed to a citizen have penumbral zones and that the right to privacy is itself a fundamental right, that fundamental right must be subject to restriction on the basis of compelling public interest. As Regulation 856 has to force of law, it cannot be said that the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 has been violated by the provisions contained in it; for, what is guaranteed under that Article is that no person shall be deprived of his life of personal liberty except by the procedure established by law’. We think that the procedure is reasonable having regard to the provisions of Regulation 853(c) and 857. We think that the procedure is reasonable having regard to the provisions of Regulation 853(c) and 857. Even if we hold that Art.19(1)(d) guarantees to a citizen a right to privacy in his movement as an emanation from the Article and is itself a fundamental right, the question will arise whether Regulation 856 is a law imposing reasonable restriction in public interest on the freedom of movement falling within Article 19(5) ; or, even if it be assumed that Article 19(5) does not apply in terms, as the right to privacy of movement cannot be absolute, a law imposing reasonable restriction upon if for compelling interest of State must be upheld as valid”. 14. It was argued that there is no specific provision of law within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution authorising photographs of suspected criminals being published as a preventive measure. The argument was that there is no law within the meaning of clauses (2) and (3) of Art.19 making reasonable restriction and there cannot be any “procedure established by law” within the meaning of Art.21 so far as this case is concerned. I have already referred to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Kerala Police Act with reference to the duties of the police in preventing commission of crimes. The actions of the police is only in the discharge of such duties. The absence of any law enumerating or specifying particular actions to be taken in given cases for preventing crimes cannot leave the police without the right to take action. It may not be possible for the State always to specify particular measures to be taken for the purpose of preventing crimes. When a particular step is taken purporting to be under the powers conferred by some provisions of law, the validity of that action will have to be tested in relating to its reasonable on the basis of that law. Publication of photos, as in this case, is evidently a preventive action which the police could resort to under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Kerala Police Act. Even though a criminal or suspected criminal also may be entitled to live with dignity and reputation such a right cannot be allowed to outweigh the interest of the State. Even though a criminal or suspected criminal also may be entitled to live with dignity and reputation such a right cannot be allowed to outweigh the interest of the State. It may be true hat publication of the photograph of an individual with a warning that he is a criminal who has to be taken care of will naturally affect his dignity and reputation, if any and it may indirectly affect his rights and liberties under Articles 19 and 21. But as held in (1973) 1 S.C.C. 471 : A.I.R.1973 SC.157 the protection is not for the guilty citizen against the efforts of the police to vindicate the law and prevent crimes. Protection will only be in favour of innocent citizens against wrongful or high handed interference by the police. If what the Director of Public Prosecutions said is correct (I have no reason to think that it is not correct), in public interest it is the duty of the police to warn the possible group victims. The actions of the police cannot be said to infringe any of the rights of the petitioner. As I have earlier stated in (1961)3 S.C.R. 429: A.I.R. 1961 SC. 884 anticipatory action to prevent crime is upheld as reasonable. Likewise in Madhu Limaye v. S.D.M. Monghyr Madhu Limaye v. S.D.M. Monghyr (1971)2 S.C.J. 479: A.I.R. 1971 SC.2486: (1971) MLJ. (Crl) 629, it was held that a person can be arrested and his fundamental rights and liberty deprived of, it there is reasonable apprehension that he will cause a breach of the peace. In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Bombay Gurcharan Singh v. State of Bombay 1952 S.C.J. 321: A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 221 an order of excrement was also upheld as reasonable. Even in (1978) Crl L.J. 1741 (A.I.R. 1978 SC. 1675) where the humane content of prison law was highlighted and the deep sensitivity of the human being was considered, classifying persons as dangerous criminals and putting iron fetters was justified. 15. The great humanistic trend in modern law has not obliterated the concept of reasonable restrictions that are imposed for the larger social welfare. The court has to protect the voiceless, the dump and the mute victims of crime, and criminal law is aimed at a correctional and preventive purpose. Lord Parker C.J., has summed up the larger goal of criminal jurisprudence as the stumping out of a criminal enterprise. Prof. The court has to protect the voiceless, the dump and the mute victims of crime, and criminal law is aimed at a correctional and preventive purpose. Lord Parker C.J., has summed up the larger goal of criminal jurisprudence as the stumping out of a criminal enterprise. Prof. E.A. Ross of Harward has observed: “Not crimes punished, but, crimes prevented should measure the worth of law. If one rascal out of 20 men can egress at will, the higher forms of control would break down.” The criminal justicing system, thus, is to uphold the rule of law, and if it fails, in the words of Butler, J of the U.S. Supreme Court; “If courts did not protect, the injured parties would be obliged to resort to private vengeance of protect themselves (Nice v. Minnesotta)” 16. The courts cannot innovate to enlarge concept of liberty, in a benevolent mood, ultimately breaking down the rule of law. Lord Devlin has cautioned the judged “neither mid-wife nor rain-maker. Though shall be”. It follows that preventive action is basic to police function. Even the largest rights shall yields to public order. The petitioner has no statutory or fundamental right not to have his photos published. The action will be perfectly reasonable to restrict his rights, if any, in larger considerations of crime prevention. As already stated by me, the petitioner has been convicted at least for three offence. The case that his reputation would suffer does not deserve serious notice. For one thing his reputation is that of a convicted criminal and the publication would even be justified by the known defence of justification by truth. Exaggerated devotion of fanciful notions innovative in characters and fanciful in content, cannot be justified, because any right should yield to restrictions imposed in public interest. We have seen instances of even total prohibition being justified and liberty being deprived by preventive detention permissible under Art.22. 17. The phraseology in Art.19(2) is “in the interest of public order” and not in the interest of law and order. In (1971)2 S.C.J. 479: A.I.R. 1971 SC. 2486 it was held that the expression “in the interest of public order” is capable of taking within itself not only those acts which disturb the security of the State but also certain acts which disturb public tranquility or breach of the peace. The expression was held to be very wide. In (1971)2 S.C.J. 479: A.I.R. 1971 SC. 2486 it was held that the expression “in the interest of public order” is capable of taking within itself not only those acts which disturb the security of the State but also certain acts which disturb public tranquility or breach of the peace. The expression was held to be very wide. No person can ask to be considered free to do what he likes when there are grounds for thinking that his conduct would be of the kind of against which society requires protection. Such action is necessary is aid of an orderly society. Activities subversive of peace and public tranquility will have to be nipped in the bud. 18. The petitioner, as I have already stated, is a convict in several case and a suspected criminal in many other cases. He is a man with known criminal tendencies which is likely to affect dangerously a possible group of persons. This possible group victims are being attempted to be given a warning by publication of photos so that they could take care of themselves. That involves no question of depriving his life or personal liberty except according to due prises of law and there is no question exceeding reasonable restrictions under clauses (2) and (3) of Art.19 also. No question of violation of Art.20(3) is also involved. The petitioner has no right to say that even at the risk of public interest, his rights, if any will have to be protected. There is nothing wrong in the photograph of the petitioner being published with warning. The petition is therefore rejected and the Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly. Petition Dismissed.