Telangana High Court Reins in Police Powers in Property Sealing Cases
In a significant ruling emphasizing strict adherence to legal procedure, the Telangana High Court has declared that police authorities cannot unilaterally seal or attach properties in cases involving alleged immoral activities. The court has ordered the immediate de-sealing of a guest house located in Guttala Begumpet, Madhapur, which had been sealed by Cyberabad police following a prostitution racket bust in August 2025.
Court Mandates Due Process Over Police Discretion
Pronouncing the order recently, Justice EV Venugopal delivered a clear directive that even in sensitive cases involving allegations like prostitution, authorities must act strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law. The case originated from a police raid on an alleged prostitution racket being operated from a five-storey building owned by the petitioner. After registering a criminal case, police proceeded to attach and seal the building.
Justice Venugopal clarified that under section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, the authority to issue a show-cause notice and pass orders for attachment or eviction rests exclusively with the magistrate, not with the police. The judge noted that police had acted beyond their jurisdiction in initiating such proceedings, observing that ownership of a building by itself does not establish that the owner had consented to or was aware of the acts allegedly committed by tenants.
Petitioner's Claims and Police Defense
The aggrieved petitioner approached the high court contending that he had leased out the property in 2024 to tenants for running a hostel and had no knowledge of, or connection with, any alleged illegal activity. He argued that while he was the lawful owner who depended on the property for his livelihood, police violated his constitutional rights by sealing the premises without issuing any notice to him. The petitioner further alleged that the show-cause notice issued much later by the commissioner of police was without legal authority.
Defending the police action, state counsel argued that the attachment was necessary as a preventive step in the interest of public order and morality. The building, being used as a brothel, had to remain sealed until completion of the criminal trial to prevent further illegal activity, the counsel contended.
Court's Final Ruling and Directions
Rejecting the police arguments, the court held that the sealing could not be sustained as the statutory procedure had not been followed and the competent authority under the Act had been bypassed. The court directed the respondents to de-seal the premises forthwith and restore possession to the petitioner.
The court also left it open to the competent magistrate to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, if warranted, and disposed of the petition. This ruling establishes an important precedent regarding property rights and procedural safeguards in cases under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
