Sri T J Shashidhar vs. State Of Karnataka

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

ND
DATED THIS THE 22 DAY OF APRIL, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

WRIT PETITION NO. 4504 OF 2021(GM-POLICE)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NOS. 6136/2017, 29117/2019,
R
14359/2020, 14399/2020, 8564/2021,
9116/2021, 13998/2021, 13999/2021,
14003/2021, 14022/2021, 14566/2021,
15696/2021, 15708/2021, 15756/2021,
15802/2021, 17538/2021, 18632/2021,
19880/2021, 23902/2021 (GM-POLICE)

IN W.P.NO.4504/2021:

BETWEEN:

SRI. B S PRAKASH,
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.81/23,
SRINIVASARAJU ROAD,
TH
6 TEMPLE ROAD,
TH
16 CROSS, MALESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560 003.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SARAT CHANDRA BIJAI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BANGALORE CITY, INFANTRY ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.



2

3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
(SHESHADRIPURAM DIVISION)
FIRST FLOOR,
SADASHIVA NAGARA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560 020,

4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VYALIKAVAL POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560 003.

5. THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,
VYALIKAVAL POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560 003.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M, AGA FOR R1-R5;
SRI. SRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE (AMICUS CURIAE))

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE
ANNEURE-A LETTER DTD.26.8.2020 AND ETC.,

IN W.P.NO.6136/2017:

BETWEEN:

SRI. RAKESH MALLI,
S/O SADANAND MALLI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
PALLAMAJAL HOUSE,
MODANKAPUR POST,
BANTWAL TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 153.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANDESH J CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL)

AND:


1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
DAKSHINA KANADA DISTRICT,
PANDESHWAR, MANGALORE,
D.K.-577 001.

3


3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
PUTTUR TALUK, D K DISTRICT,
PUTTUR D.K- 574 201.

4. POLICE CIRCLE INSPECTOR,
BANTWAL TOWN POLICE,
BANTWAL, D.K – 574 211.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R1-R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DT.28.1.2016 PASSED BY THE R-
2 I.E. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, D.K MANGALORE,
VIDE ANNX-A IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS
EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE CONSEQUENTLY TO DIRECT
THE R-2 TO CLOSE THE ROWDY SHEET OPENED IN
PETITIONER'S NAMEIN THE BANTWAL TOWN POLICE
STATION.

IN W.P.NO.29117/2019:

BETWEEN:

RAMESH BABU. V. M.
S/O. MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
ST
1 CROSS, MALLIGE ROAD,
GOKULA EXTENSION,
TUMKUR-572 104.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANDEEP LAHARI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. R SHASHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.

2. DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE (DG & IGP),
NO.6, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560 001.

4


3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,B. H. ROAD,
SIDDALINGAIAHNA PALYA,
TUMAKURU, KARNATAKA-572 103,
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.

4. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
JAYANAGARA POLICE STATION,
TUMAKURU-572 104,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH ENDORSEMENT DATED 24.05.2019 PASSED BY THE
R-3 (ANNEXURE-L); AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED
15.11.2012 PASSED BY THE R-3 (ANNEXURE-F);

IN W.P.NO.14359/2020:

BETWEEN:

SRI. MANJA @ GOLLA MANJA,
S/O MUDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RD
R/AT NO 21, 3 CROSS,
OPP CAUVERY SCHOOL,
MARATHAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 037.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHARMILA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNLMENT,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.


5

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY,
INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
BANGALORE SOUTH EAST DIVISION,
BANGALORE-560 001.

4. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MARATH HALLI POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PRODUCE THE COPY OF THE
ROWDY REGISTER PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER AND
ETC.,

IN W.P.NO.14399/2020:

BETWEEN:

SRI. SURESH,
S/O MUDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RD
RESIDIG AT NO.21, 3 CROSS,
OPP. CAUVERY SDCHOOL,
MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE 560 037.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHARMILA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANASOUDHA,
BANGALORE 560 001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BANGALORE CITY INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 001.


3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BANGALORE SOUTH EAST DIVISION,
BANGALORE 560 001.

6

4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MARATHAHALLI POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY 560 037.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PRODUCE THE COPY OF THE
ROWDY SHEET AND THE ORDER CONTINUING THE ROWDY
SHEETAND ETC.,

IN W.P.NO.8564/2021:

BETWEEN:

SRI. G KRISHNAPPA,
SON OF NARASIMHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHENCHURAYANAPALLI VILLAGE,
GULUR HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101.

3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
BAGEPALLI POLICE STATION, BAGEPALLI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT -562 101.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
a)ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING ORDER OF INCLUDING THE
PETITIONERS NAME IN ROWDY SHEETER LIST AND ETC.,


7

IN W.P.NO.9116/2021:

BETWEEN:

SRI. RAJKUMAR,
S/O VADDAGALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT GANGALAGHATTA VILLAGE,
NONAVINAKERE HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 201.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJENDRA V G, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE HOME SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
ASHOKNAGAR, B H ROAD,
TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR - 572101

4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
TIPTUR TOWN, B H ROAD,
TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
TIPTUR RURAL CIRCLE, TIPTUR TOWN,
TIPTUR TALUK,, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101.

6. THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,
NONAVINAKERE POLICE STATION,
TIPTUR TALUK,, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R1-R6)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 27.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE
R-5 VIDE ANNX-G AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ROWDY
SHEET/LIST OPENED ON 17.05.2017 IN THE R-6 POLICE
STATION AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,

8


IN W.P.NO.13998/2021:

BETWEEN:

SRI. N. GANDHI,
S/O. SRI. V. NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT NO. “U” 7, II MAIN ROAD,
II CROSS, HANUMANTHAPURAM,
BENGALURU-560 021.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M T NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. B N BALASUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
REP BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
AND HOME SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
NORTH DIVISION,
BENGALURU CITY, YESWANTHPUR,
BENGALURU-560 022.

4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
MALLESHWARAM DIVISION, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560 003.


5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560 021.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.06.2021 PASSED BY
THE R3 I.E, ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS
TO RECONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.04.2021,

9

BY REMOVING THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE
ROWDY LIST OF THE R5 POLICE STATION, BENGALURU.

IN W.P.NO.13999/2021:

BETWEEN:

SRI. V NAGARAJ,
s/o SRI VARADAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT NO U 7, II MAIN ROAD,
II CROSS, HANUMANTHAPURAM,
BENGALURU 560 021.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M T NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. VISHNU HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
REP BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
AND HOME SECRETARY,
VIDHNA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560 001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY
INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
NORTH DIVISION, BANGALORE CITY,
YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE 560 022.

4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
MALLESHWARAM DIVISION,
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE 560 003.

5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SRIRAMPURA, BANGALORE 560 021.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.06.2021 PASSED BY
THE R3 I.E, ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS
TO RECONSIDER THE REPRESENTATTION DATED 28.04.2021
ANNEXURE-B BY REMOVING THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER

10

FROM THE ROWDY LIST OF THE R5 POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU

IN W.P.NO.14003/2021:

BETWEEN:

SRI. N. SHASTRI,
S/O. SRI. V. NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT NO. “U” 7, II MAIN ROAD,
II CROSS, HANUMANTHAPURAM,
BENGALURU-560 021.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M T NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. BALASUBRAMANYA B N, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
REP BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
AND HOME SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
NORTH DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY,
YESWANTHPUR, BENGALURU-560 022.

4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
MALLESHWARAM DIVISION,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.


5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560 021.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.06.2021 PASSED BY
THE R3 I.E,. ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS
TO RECONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.04.2021,

11

AT ANNEXURE-B BY REMOVING THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER FROM THE ROWDY LIST OF THE RESPONDENT
NO.5 POLICE STATION, BENGALURU.

IN W.P.NO.14022/2021:

BETWEEN:

SRI. VEGAMBURAM
@ EKABARAM @ KUTTY,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O ANAIYAPPA,
R/O NO.38, HARIJANA SEVA SANGA,
C M H ROAD, LAXMIPURAM,
HALASURU HAL IIND STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 008.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
101, IST FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
NEAR VIDHANA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. DIRECTOR AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
IEAST DIVISION BENGALURU CITY,
BENGALURU-560 032.

5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
HALSOOR SUB DIVISION,
BANGALORE-560 008.

6. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
INDRANAGAR POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE-560 038.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

12

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH INCORPORATION OF HIS NAME AS ROWDY SHEET AT
INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION, UNDER STANDING ORDER
NUMBER 1059 OF KARNATAKA POLICE MANUAL (ANNEXURE-
A)

IN W.P.NO.14566/2021:

BETWEEN:

SRI. MUNEENDRA M,
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.21, DODDANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI, ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 100.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARISH K A, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
AGNEYA DIVISION, BENGALURU TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA STATION,
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA,
BENGALURU - 560 100.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R2 TO 4, TO DELETE THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER FROM THE ROWDY LIST AND ETC.,

13

IN W.P.NO.15696/2021:

BETWEEN:

SRI. T. R. SAMPATH,
S/O .T.R.RAMDAS,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
NO.48/1, T.R.R.COMPLEX,
ST ND
1 MAIN, 2 CROSS,
ST
BTM 1 STAGE,
TAVAREKERE BUS STOP,
BENGALURU.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAMARTH PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RANGASWAMY M T, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS
REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
M.S.BUILDING,
DR.ABMEDKAR VEEDI,
BENGALURU-560 021.
BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
INFANTRY ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.

3. THE INSEPCTOR OF PLOCE
SUDDAGUNTEPALYA POLICE,
BENGALURU-560 029.

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
SOUTH EAST DIVISION,
TH
19 MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD,
TH
KORAMANGALA 6 BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 095.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS REMOVE THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER FROM THE ROWDY LIST.



14

IN W.P.NO.15708/2021:

BETWEEN:

SRI. T. J. SHASHIDHAR,
S/O JAYARAM,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
NO.48/1, T. R. R. COMPLEX
ST ND
1 MAIN, 2 CROSS,
ST
BTM 1 STAGE,
TAVAREKERE BUS STOP,
BENGALURU.
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SAMARTH PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RANGASWAMY M T, ADVOCATE)

AND;

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
M S BUILDING,DR AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BENGALURU-560 021.
BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
INFANTRY ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.

3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SUDDGUNTE PALYA POLICE,
BENGALURU-560 029.

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
OF POLICE SOUTH EAST DIVISION,
TH
19 MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD,
TH
KORAMANGALA 6 BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 095.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REMOVE THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER FROM THE ROWDY LIST.



15

IN W.P.NO.15756/2021:

BETWEEN:

MR. VIJAYA KUMAR K
@ VIJI, SON OF KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1751,
TH
7 CROSS, SANJEEVINI NAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 092.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHANKAR H S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VIDHANASOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BENGALURU CITY INFANTRY ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.

3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560 092.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ROWDY LIST WHICH IS AT ANENXURE-C IN
RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER IN THE LIMITS OF THE
KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION i.e BY THE R-3 AND ETC.,

IN W.P.NO.15802/2021:

BETWEEN:

SRI. BALARAJ,
S/O. CHINAPPA,
AGEDABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 87, MESTRIPALAY,
BEHIND NEW ST. ANNAMMA CHRUCH,
BANGALORE 560 077.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SIDDARTH B MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE)

16

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF AMRUTHAHALLI POLICE STATION,
AMRUTHAHALLI, BANGALORE.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE.

3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
AMRUTHAHALLI SUB DIVISION,
BANGALORE.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 09.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE
R-1 VIDE ANNX-F AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO
REMOVE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE LIST OF
NAMES OF ROWDY SHEETERS.

IN W.P.NO.17538/2021:

BETWEEN:

P T SUBRAMANYAM,
S/O THIMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
DALAVAI BAVI STREET,
PAVGADA, TUMKUR DISTRICT 561 202.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ERAPPA REDDY M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
TUMKUR ,
TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 101.

2. THE DEPUTY SUPERTINTENDENT OF POLICE
MADHUGIRI,
TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 132.

3. THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
PAVGADA POLICE STATION,
PAVGADA,
TUMKUR DISTRICT 561 202.

17

4. THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
PAVGADA POLICE STATION,
PAVGADA, TUMKUR DISTRICT 561 202.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT AND TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD 29.07.2020 VIDE
ANNX-B AND ETC.,

IN W.P.NO.18632/2021:

BETWEEN:

N G VEERABHADRAIAH,
S/O LATE V GANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O NADUVANAHALLY VILLAGE ,
HANDANAKERE HOBLI,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 119.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH D C, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572 101.

2. ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
TIPTUR SUB DIVISION, TIPTUR – 572 201.
TUMKUR DISTRICT.

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY CIRCLE,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY – 572 214.
TUMKUR DISTRICT.

4. MR. SHIVAPPA,
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
HANDANAKERE POLICE STATION ,
HANDANAKERE – 572 119.
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

18


THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
THE INCLUSION OF THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE
ROWDY SHEETER LIST OF HANDANAKERRE POLICE STATION,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY TALUKB THE R4 IS HIGHLY ILLEGAL
AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT VIDE
ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY THE R3 AND ENDORSEMENT DATED
23.01.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY R4 AS THE SAME
ARE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW.

IN W.P.NO.19880/2021:

BETWEEN:

SRI. R MUNIRAJU,
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
TH
R/AT NO.18 12 CROSS,
80 FEET ROAD, MTS LAYOUT,
KENGERI NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 060.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI.KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
M S BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
BENGALURU SOUTH EAST ZONE,
BENGALURU-560 060.

3. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KENGERI PS,
BENGALURU-560 060.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ROWDY SHEET OPENED BY THE R-3 AGAINST
THE PETITIONER UNDER VIDE ORDER FORM NO.100 ORDER.


19

IN W.P.NO.23902/2021:

BETWEEN:

SRI. M GANESH REDDY,
S/O SRI LATE D MUNISWAMY REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
TH
R/O. NO.28, GANESHA NILAYA, 13 MAIN,
KAGGDASAPURA, C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 093.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUMANTH L BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
HOME DEPARTMENT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560 001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
EAST DIVISION, ULSOOR MAIN ROAD,
ULSOOR, BENGALURU 560 008.

4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
ULSOOR MAIN ROAD, ULSOOR,
BENGALURU 560 008.

5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
BYAPPANAHALLI POLICE STATION,
BYAPPANAHALLI, BENGALURU 560 093.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT/ORDER DATED 04.10.2021
PASSED BY THE R5 HEREIN A COPY OF THE SAID
ENDORSEMENT/ORDER IS HEREWITH SUBMITTED AS
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

20


ORDER
The following observations of Hon’ble Justice V.R.
Krishna Iyer in the case of MOHAMMAD GIASUDDIN vs. STATE
1
OF ANDHRA PRADESH should prelude this judgment:
“…Criminality is a curable deviance. The morality of
the law may vary, but is real. The basic goodness of
all human beings is a spiritual axiom, a fall–out of
the advaita of cosmic creation and the spring of
correctional thought in criminology… If every saint
has a past, every sinner has a future, and it is
the role of law to remind both of this. The
Indian legal genius of old has made a healthy
contribution to the world treasury of criminology.
The drawback of our criminal process is that
often they are built on the bricks of
impressionist opinions and dated values,
ignoring empirical studies and deeper
researches…. India, like every other country, has
its own crime complex and dilemma of punishment.
Solutions to tangled social issues do not come like
the crack of dawn but are the product of research
and study, oriented on the founding faiths of society
and driving towards that transformation which is
the goal of free India...”

All these petitions involving similar questions of law &
facts essentially pertain to ‘Rowdy Sheeting’ and ‘History
Sheeting’ . After service of notice, the respondent – State having
entered appearance through the learned Additional Government
Advocate, has filed its Statement of Objections resisting the
petitions. A few police officials rich in experience and talented
too participated in these proceedings and thereby, appreciably
contributed to the decision making process.


1
1978 SCR (1) 153

21

II. RELIEFS SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONERS:
Petitioners in W.P No. 4504/2021, W.P No. 6136/2017,
W.P No. 29117/2019, W.P No. 14359/2020, W.P
No.8564/2021, W.P No.9116/2021, W.P No. 13998/2021, W.P
No.13999/2021, W.P No. 14003/2021, W.P No.15756/2021,
W.P No. 15802/2021, W.P No. 14399/2020, W.P No.
17538/2021 & W.P No. 23902/2021 seek a Writ of Certiorari for
quashing endorsements/communications whereby their names
are loaded to the ‘ rowdy register ’. Petitioners in W.P No.
14399/2020, W.P No. 14022/2021, W.P No.15696/2021, W.P
No. 15708/2021, W.P No. 19880/2021, W.P No. 17538/2021 &
W.P No. 23902/2021 seek a Writ of Mandamus for producing
particulars of entries in the ‘ Rowdy Register ’. Petitioners in W.P
No. 14566/2021 and 18632/2021 have sought for a Writ of
Prohibition and a Declaration respectively. Even their grievance,
presumably is as to the legality of continuation of their names
in the ‘ Rowdy Register’.

III. CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES:

(i) Petitioners inter alia argue that there exists no discernable
procedure for entering of their names to the Rowdy Registers
maintained in the jurisdictional police stations and that there is
no procedural & substantive safeguarding of victims of rowdy
sheeting, which has many implications on their liberty, privacy
& reputation. Mindless rowdy sheeting violates their
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21, & 22

22

of the Constitution. In support of their submission, they rely
upon comparative study material of Criminal Records
Information obtained from foreign jurisdictions like Australia,
Canada, U.S. & U.K. They press into service the following
2
decisions: K.S PUTTASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA , KHARAK
3
SINGH vs . STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH , DHANJI RAM SHARMA
4
vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE , GOBIND vs. STATE OF
5
MADHYA PRADESH , MALAK SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB &
6
HARYANA , PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES vs. UNION
7
OF INIDA , BHAVESH JAYANTI LAKHANI vs. STATE OF
8
MAHARASHTRA , R.G SOMASHEKAR GOWDA vs. THE
9
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE and KAZIA MOHAMMED
10
MUZZAMMIL vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE .

(ii) Respondent – State, per contra, contends that rowdy
sheeting has been a necessary practice since Colonial Days and
it is managed by police officials with expertise and due
restraint; there is enough justification for ‘institutionalized
rowdy sheeting’ since it is essential for maintaining law & order
and peace & tranquillity in an organized society. Sufficient
substantive & procedural safeguards are put in place; victims

2
(2017) 10 SCC 1
3
AIR 1963 SC 1295
4
AIR 1966 SC 1766
5
(1975) 2 SCC 148
6
(1981) 1 SCC 420
7
(1997) 1 SCC 301
8
(2009) 9 SCC 551
9
ILR 2012 KAR 1038
10
ILR 2001 KAR 1735

23

can avail the facility of grievance redressal mechanism. There is
an ‘institutionalized in-house procedure’ in the Police
Department. After all, rowdy sheeting or history sheeting is not
a punitive measure and therefore no indulgence of Writ Court is
warranted. In support of their stand, they bank upon the
following decisions: K.M MUNISWAMY REDDY vs. STATE OF
11
KARNATAKA , DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE vs. S.
12
SAMUTHIRAM , STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. PRAVEEN BHAI
13 14
THOGADIA , SHILPI CONSTRUCTIONS vs. UNION OF INDIA ,
15
RAJAN vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA and M.J SIVANI vs. STATE
16
OF KARNATAKA .
(iii) On request of the Court, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr.
Sridhar Prabhu had appreciably undertaken a comparative
study of Criminal Information Practices prevalent in our
country, and in the United States & United Kingdom. A more
local comparison was also made by referring to ‘Maintenance of
Police Station Records by Delhi Police’ . This apart, various
international Conventions such as UNIVERSAL DECLERATION
OF HUMAN RIGHTS (1948) , EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF
HUMAN RIGHTS (1953) & CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (2000) are cited. He also pressed
into service the following decisions: VIJAY NARAIN SINGH vs.

11
ILR 1992 KAR 2543
12
(2013) 1 SCC 598
13
(2004) 4 SCC 684
14
(2020) 16 SCC 489
15
ILR 2018 KAR 3531

24

17 18
STATE OF BIHAR , BARIUM CHEMICALS vs. SH. A.J.RANA ,
19
S.G. JAISINGHANI vs. UNION OF INDIA , SHAYARA BANO vs.
20 21
UNION OF INDIA and WOLF vs. COLORADO .
IV. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties &
learned Amicus Curiae. I have perused the Petition Papers and
adverted to the rulings cited at the Bar:
(a) These cases involve the following four categories broadly
made on the basis of the due process of rowdy sheeting,
periodical suo motu review, review on representation of
aggrieved and absence of review despite representation. A
Tabular Representation of the categories is as under:
(a) Cases in which rowdy sheeting is done absolutely
without any basis;
(b) Cases in which periodical suo motu review of rowdy
sheets has not been done, in regular course;

(c) Cases in which review of rowdy sheets has not been
undertaken despite representation and;

(d) Cases in which rowdy sheeting is continued beyond
reasonable period sans justification.


(b) Policing by its very nature, is a tough job whichever be the
jurisdictions and whatever be the cultural & educational levels
of the society concerned. In a society like ours it is even more
complex, regard being had to a plurality of factors. Policing
essentially involves exercise of sovereign power of State having

16
(1995) 6 SCC 289
17
AIR 1984 SC 1334
18
(1972)1 SCC 240
19
(1967) 2 SCR 703
20
(2017) 9 SCC 1
21
(1948) 338 U.S. 25

25

implications on rights & liberties of individuals. Without
policing one cannot conceive of law & order and peace &
tranquillity in an organised society. Paradoxically, police are, in
a sense, an unwelcome guest. However, their indispensability
needs no proof. Policing, regardless of its enormous social utility
continues to be a thankless job. Ours is the governance limited
by Constitution. Police being the officials of the State do not
enjoy immunity from constitutional control and more
particularly Part IIII discipline. It needs to be stated that the
vitality of fundamental rights has been enhanced by virtue of
several international conventions such as United Nations
Declaration on Human Rights (1948), International Convention
on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the like in the light of
22
decisions in KESAVANANDA , JOLLY GEORGE VERGHESE vs.
23 24
BANK OF COCHIN and VISHAKA vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN .

(c) The word ‘Police’ figures in Entry 2, List II of VII Schedule
nd
of the Constitution subject to Entry 2A, of the List I, vide 42
Amendment with effect from 03.01.1977. Several States have
enacted law in respect of this subject. This State too has done it
vide the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. A few sets of Rules have
been promulgated by the State Government, being the statutory
delegate under the Act. The Karnataka Police Manual, 1965
(hereinafter ‘Manual’) is one of them. The Manual comprises of a

22
AIR 1973 SC 1461
23
1980 SCR (2) 913

26

set of subordinate legislations nomenclatured as ‘ Orders’, and
they are held to have statutory force vide K.M.MUNISWAMY
supra. Some of these orders regulate inter alia surveillance and
Rowdy Sheeting/History Sheeting. Police have to exercise this
power subject to the Fundamental Rights, that are no longer
25
‘ water - tight compartments’ . The scope, efficacy & interplay of
these rights have been expanding precedent by precedent,
hardly needs to be mentioned . Such expansion more
particularly in the realm of privacy jurisprudence warrants a
new approach to the subject matter .

(d) No reasonable person can deny that citizens seek
protection of their rights & liberties more than ever before,
banking upon constitutional guarantees. Conversely, the State
functionaries claim more authority to restrict the rights &
liberties of the citizens, as of necessity and in the larger public
interest. This has been the case all throughout and the conflict
goes on, whatever be the jurisdictions. The Writ Courts being
the custodians of the Constitution have to balance these
competing claims, keeping in view all pragmatic considerations.
This is where the following observations of the Apex Court in
MALAK SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB , supra become
instructive:
“...Section 23 of the Police Act prescribes it as the
duty of police officers to collect and communicate

24
AIR 1997 SC 3011
25
MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA , (1978) 1 SCC 248

27

intelligence affecting the public peace, to prevent
the commission of offences and public nuisance. In
connection with these duties it will be
necessary to keep discreet surveillance over
reputed bad characters, habitual offenders
and other potential offenders ...but surveillance
may be intrusive and it may be so seriously
encroach on the privacy of a citizen as to infringe
his fundamental right to personal liberty
guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution and
the freedom of movement guaranteed by Article
19(1)(d)... permissible surveillance is only to the
extent of a close watch over the movement of
persons under surveillance and no more ...”


V. A BRIEF HISTORY OF ‘HISTORY SHEETS’ & ‘ROWDY
SHEETS’:

(i) As a prelude to the historical inquiry, it would be
profitable to recall the words of Justice Oliver Wendell
26
Holmes :
“…The law embodies the story of a nation’s
development through many centuries, and it cannot
be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms
and corollaries of a book of mathematics. In order
to know what it is, we must know what it has
been, and what it tends to become. We must
alternately consult history and existing theories of
legislation…”

Since the focal point is ‘rowdy/history sheeting’ and allied
matters, it is pertinent to retrace the historical origin of said
practice, ‘…one gains the sense of an epic movement unifying the
legal process, – the picture and promise of a plot majestically
unfolding itself amid all the interludes and diversions – when one
27
reads the history…’ . For the present, this Court limits the

26
The Common Law , (1881)
27
Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Paradoxes of Legal Science , Columbia
University Press 18 – 19, (1928)

28

th th
inquiry to the emergence of said practice during the 19 & 20
centuries, when we were under the Colonial Rule. To
contextualise this discussion, it would be profitable to note the
28
following words of TOM LLOYD from the University of
Edinburgh:
“In their attempts to constitute a particular kind of
authority over bandits in early colonial India,
British Administrators of the East India Company
were moved to legislate against what they
perceived as certain extraordinary criminal groups,
defined by the alleged secrecy of their operations
and the fundamental irrationality of their cause,
which was figured as merciless
depredation...‘Thug’ was the name given to a figure
located beyond the pale of ‘civil’ society, and held
to be a member of a community of ‘irreclaimable’
predators upon it, who could not be socialised into
conventional law…Through policing, this defining
and controlling, they characterized (and indeed
caricatured) not only those individuals who would
henceforth be considered non-subjects to which
ordinary procedures of British administration
would not apply – dacoits and thugs...”

(ii) In light of the above, the identification of categories of
‘ thugs’ paved the way for innovative and extra-judicial
mechanisms for dealing with the rowdy elements. The ‘ Anti
Thuggee Campaign’ provided to Governor General Bentinck’s
administration by Captain William Sleeman sought to deal with
the systematic and lurking menace that until now escaped
justice by exploiting the margins of Civil and State authority.
Though the campaign was pursued for colonial security, it was
undertaken with overtones of ‘ duty’ for the good of hapless

29

society. An instance of such an approach is evident from
judicial reforms introduced by Warren Hastings in 1772
whereby Article 35 of the Regulating Act provided that bandits
would be executed and their families would become ‘ slaves of
29
the state ’. However, much of this was not put to
30
implementation. Hastings had said :
“...the dacoits of Bengal are not, like the robbers in
England, individuals driven to such desperate
course by sudden want: they are robbers by
profession, and even by birth; they are formed into
regular communities, and their families subsist by
the spoils which they bring home to them: they are
all, therefore, alike, criminal wretches, who have
placed themselves in a state of declared war with
our Government, and are therefore wholly excluded
from any benefit of its laws...”

A Dacoit was not simply set outside the law, but rather
abandoned by it . Discretion of the colonial powers was the sole
determinant as to whether the individual was to be protected by
the law or exempted from it. The bandit existed in a state of
bare life in relation to the sovereign power that banished him by
branding.
31

(iii) The Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 enacted on the principle
of ‘hereditary criminality’ is one such example where Colonial
powers drew up a list of certain Indian communities and branded
them as criminal tribes in a wholesale way . While the Act to be

28
Tom Lloyd, ‘Thuggee’ and the Margins of the State in Early Nineteenth –
Century Colonial India (2008)
29 th
M.P Jain, ‘Outlines of Indian Legal & Constitutional History’ , 56-57, 6
Edition, (2006)
30
Id.
31
Act No. XXVII of 1871

30

repealed (1952) and tribes ‘ de - notified’ , the harrowing affects of
32 33
such measure are still felt . The words of PARAMA ROY
further elucidate upon the approach employed by Colonial
Powers:
“...With all the discrepant valences of this
discourse, one factor remained crucial in the
determination of thuggee: the idea of hereditary
criminality...the dacoits of Bengal were strenuously
and repeatedly characterized...as fulfilling a
hereditary calling if not a genetic disposition...”

34
What MRINAL SATISH in his article writes as follows is also
pertinent:
“...three categories of persons over whom the
police in colonial times kept a constant watch: first,
the so-called ‘criminal tribes’; secondly, the so-
called goondas and thirdly, the so called ‘bad
characters’...the third category of persons who
were kept under surveillance by the British were
‘bad characters’...police maintained lists of people
they termed as bad characters and profiled based
on their appearances. The ‘bad characters’ did not
have to be convicted to make their way into the
police lists. Mere suspicion or apprehension that
the individual would commit the crime or be an
inconvenience to the police was sufficient to
warrant an entry. Every stereotype that the British
had sought to reinforce about people being born
criminals was put to practice in making the
lists...People from the family of a convicted person
automatically found themselves on the list.
Individual on these lists were kept under
surveillance to ensure that they did not commit any
crimes...”

32
Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Consideration of
Reports Submitted by State Parties: Concluding observations of the Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/IND/CO/19
(2007)

34
Mrinal Satish, 'Bad Characters, History Sheeters, Budding Goondas and
Rowdies': Police Surveillance Files and Intelligence Databases in India , (2010).

31


(iv) The use of ‘ rowdy sheets’ may find direct lineage to the
precept of ‘ goondas’. The word ‘goonda’ is reported to have been
first used in the Bengal Goonda Act of 1926. It defined a goonda
to include a ‘hooligan or other rough.’ The ‘goondas’ included
people with prior convictions, people suspected of committing
offences and political activists. The Act required the Police to
maintain files of goondas in their jurisdictions. Other States too
have Goonda Acts as well, which inter alia provide for
externment of goondas by following a kind of quasi-judicial
procedure which then did not approximate to ‘ due process’.
Order 1059 of the Police Manual defines ‘a rowdy’ as a goonda
and includes a hooligan, rough, vagabond or any other person,
who is dangerous to the public peace and tranquillity . The
observations of a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in R.G
SOMASHEKAR GOWDA vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, supra
are illustrative of this genealogy:
“An extensive definition has been used to define
the expression ‘rowdy’. Thus, a ‘rowdy’ is a
‘goonda’ and includes a hooligan, rough,
vagabond, or any other person who is dangerous to
the public peace and tranquillity. Only the main
forms of rowdyism are enumerated in Clause (2) of
Order 1059...Needless to say that a goonda as
defined in the Goondas Act is also a rowdy.”

The Apex Court in DHANJI RAM SHARMA vs. SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE, supra held that persons reasonably believed to be
habitually addicted to crime (aiding or abetting) is a condition
precedent for opening of a ‘ History Sheet’ . This inference of one

32

filling that character ought to be drawn on reasonable grounds.
The word ‘ habitually’ would ordinarily mean ‘ repeatedly’ or
‘ persistently’. A person thus should be in the ‘ habit’ of exhibiting
criminal instinct vide VIJAY NARAIN SINGH vs. STATE OF
BIHAR . A ‘History Sheeter’ is thus, a habitual offender,
accustomed to leading a life of crime. Ordinarily, a ‘ History
Sheet’ can be opened on conviction (Order 1054), although
acquitted from criminal charge per se may not result in his
name being deleted therefrom.
(v) There exists a certain difference both in terms of
substance and form of practice between a History Sheet and a
Rowdy Sheet: The former is confined to persons against whom
some crime was registered by the Police or some criminal case
was instituted before Court or authority, regardless of the
nature of their outcome. However, in the latter, there is no such
precondition/requirement. In other words, a rowdy sheeter may
be a person of clean slate insofar as criminal proceedings are
concerned. The underlying purpose in both the cases is broadly
the same. Arguably ‘ History Sheeters’ and ‘Rowdy Sheeters’ are
different. The only discernable elements of a ‘ rowdy sheeter ’ are
provided under Order 1059(1) & (2) which reads as under:
“1059 (1) a rowdy may be defined as a goonda
and includes a hooligan, tough, vagabond, or any
other person who is dangerous to the public peace
and tranquillity.(2) The main forms of rowdyism
are:-(a) passing indecent remarks at women and
Schools and College Girls; (b) Intimidation of law
abiding people by acts of violence or by show of

33

force or by abusive language; (c) Forcible collection
of subscription; (d) Taking sides in petty quarrels
between landlords and tenants or between co-
tenants and threatening people of the opposite
party; (e) Disorderly conduct; (f) Rioting; (g)
Snatching and Committing robbery.”

Chapter XXI, Part VI, of the Police Manual provides for ‘History
Sheets’ and ‘ Register of Rowdies’ ; certain provisions are made
common to both. Illustratively, Order 1057 states that History
Sheets can only be opened for a period of two years and
extension can take place upon the order of Superior Police
officer. Clause (3) of 1057 applies the same to ‘ rowdy sheets’ as
well. Further, definition of a rowdy implies any person
dangerous to public peace & tranquillity. For example, eve
teasers, people who collected money, persons indulging in
rioting, goondas, bootleggers, and land grabbers would all come
under the definition of ‘rowdy’. To keep a watch on such
persons a ‘ register of rowdies’ is maintained in every Police
Station. For entering of names in the rowdy register order of the
Superintendent of Police/Sub Divisional Police Office is
required.

(vi) In every Police Station, as a matter of statutory policy
‘ Register of Rowdies’ has to be maintained in three parts, viz ,
Part A containing names of persons who are residing in the
jurisdictional limits of the Police Station or Locals who are
confirmed rowdies; Part B containing names of confirmed
rowdies whose activities occur in a Police Station but are

34

resident in the jurisdiction of other Police Stations or non –
locals who are confirmed rowdies ; Part C containing names of
novices or persons who have started coming to notice or are
budding rowdies. Order 1059(12) provides that the name of a
person figuring in Part C would be struck off if no adverse
conduct on his part is noticed for a period of one year, reckoned
from the date of entry. For removal of names from Part A or B,
the orders of Superintendent of Police are required. Further,
Order 1059(15) provides the manner in which a ‘ rowdy ’ may be
dealt with, i.e., prosecution, externment proceedings, or the
like.
VI. COMPARATIVE VIEW:
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the
learned amicus curiae drew the attention of Court to the
corresponding enactments and practices obtaining in other
jurisdictions. Their perusal in profitable.
A. IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
(i) History sheets obtaining in India broadly correspond to a
Record of Arrest and Detention (hereinafter ‘RAP Sheet’) wherein
all prior criminal antecedents of persons are recorded. For
example, the contents of a RAP sheet include, a unique record
number, date of arrest, particulars of the person, warrants
issued, docket number, court of prosecution, details of disposal
of case, details of incarceration and whether the case has been
sealed.

35

(ii) Each State has its own procedures and guidelines for
registering to and expunging names from the record; in New
York the Division of Criminal Justice Service (DCJS) collects
and distributes RAP Sheet information & allied matters.
Similarly, in California, the Department of Justice (DOJ) does
this. However, each instance has sufficient safeguards &
procedures in terms of correction of information, representation
for sealing of cases and procedure for expungement of names or
particulars. Added, the U.S Supreme Court in US DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE vs. REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF
35
THE PRESS unanimously held that disclosure of
information/contents of RAP sheets to third parties offends
privacy & autonomy of an individual, that are constitutionally
provided and Congressionally protected.


B. IN UNITED KINGDOM:
(i) In UK, criminal data is entered into consolidated data
bases, i.e., Police National Computer (‘PNC’) for information
regarding convictions, cautions, reprimands, warnings &
arrests and Police National Database (‘PND’) for information
such as investigation, etc. The entries made in the PNC are
regulated by Chief Constables; such a provision corresponds to
the prevalent practice of entering of names into a Register of
Rowdies with the prior permission of the Superintendent of

35
489 U.S. 749 (1989)


36

Police, in our system. However, there is no existing mechanism
for expunging or sealing of criminal records.

(ii) For deletion of entries from the record, a written
representation is to be made to the jurisdictional Chief
Constable in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the
National Police Chiefs’ Council (‘NPCC’). Interestingly, persons
convicted by a court and persons currently under investigation
are not eligible for making representation for deletion. The
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, 1974, provides that reprimands
and warnings become ‘ spent’ after duration of time; once so
spent the obligation to disclose also fades. Since May 2013, old
and minor convictions are liable to be removed from the PNC
databases.
C. IN CANADA:
In Canada, the Criminal Records Act, 1985 is enacted for
suspension of the records of persons who have been convicted of
offences and have been subsequently rehabilitated themselves.
The Parole Board of Canada has the exclusive jurisdiction over
such matters. The Act at clause (4.1), sub – clause (3) lays down
the factors for determining whether ordering the record
suspension would bring about the administration of justice. The
relevant portions of the said clause are profitably reproduced as
under:
“(3) In determining whether ordering the record
suspension would bring the administration of
justice into dispute, the Board may consider

37

(a) The nature, gravity and duration of offence;
(b) The circumstances surrounding the
commission of offence;
(c) Information relating to the applicants
criminal history and, in the case of service
offence, to any service offence history of the
applicant that is relevant to the application;
and
(d) Any factor that is prescribed by regulation.”

Further, the enactment of clause (4.2), sub – clause (4) also
provides that an applicant may not make a representation until
expiry of one year from when request for suspension of criminal
record has been rejected. Revocation of suspension on cogent
factors is also provided for at clause 7.
D. IN AUSTRALIA:
The Australian Federal Police records and collects a
database with regard to criminal records of individuals. The
Criminal Records Act, 1991 enacted to ensure that conviction
for minor offences, when the person has spent a certain time
period as ‘ crime – free ’, the conviction is to be considered as
spent, not forming a part of an individual’s criminal history.
This apart, the Privacy Act, 1988 protects the criminal record
information of individuals.
VII. ROWDY/HISTORY SHEETING: MARCH OF LAW IN
BRIEF
(i) Before addressing the points for consideration as
articulated above, it is necessary to survey the law that has
been shaped by the judicial process. In N.

38

36
VENKATACHALAPATHY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA , a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court traced the provision for
preparation of a ‘rowdy sheet’ to Order 1059 of the Mysore
Police Manual, 1965 pointing out that though there was no
statutory basis for said Order, it merely has the character of
executive or departmental instruction. Subsequently, a Division
Bench of this Court in K.M MUNISWAMY REDDY vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA supra considered its constitutionality and upheld
its validity & statutory nature, observing that: “…Order 1059
has statutory force made by the Inspector General of Police under
Section 21 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963…”
(ii) This above case was followed by DEVADAS DEVAIAH VS.
37
STATE OF KARNATAKA , disposed off on 27.09.1999 wherein
the Court held that a ‘ rowdy sheet’ can only be opened if the
grounds enumerated in Order 1059 were forthcoming and that
they may not be opened against whom merely a criminal case is
registered. Next, another Division Bench of this court in KAZIA
MOHAMMED MUZZAMMILL vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ,
supra held that the ‘ register of rowdies’ is a confidential
document meant only for the use of Police for maintaining
surveillance or keeping a watchful eye on persons suspected to
cause disharmony in the community. Similarly, the Delhi Court

36
ILR 1988 KAR 1261
37
Writ Petition No. 23716 to 23718/98

39

38
in SARJEET SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE while
considering the opening of a history sheet, at paragraph 10 &
11 observed as under:
“...The Supreme Court in the case of Malak Singh
vs. State of Punjab had gone into this controversy
and answered the question holding that the said
principle that a person must be given an
opportunity of being heard will not be applicable in
case of history sheeters and surveillance register.
The enquiry was held to be confidential and the
said principle of natural justice excluded...”

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh too while considering similar
aspects in SUNKARA SATYANARAYANA vs. STATE OF ANDHRA
39
PRADESH observed as under:
“...(4) Scope of Judicial Review of Police Action vis-
a-vis History Sheet/Rowdy Sheet: (4.1) A mere
conviction or convictions cannot be a thumb rule for
opening history sheets or rowdy sheets though
history sheet can be opened even without
convictions for the limited purpose of watching a
person discreetly. (4.2) At the time of opening of
history sheet or rowdy sheet a competent officer
has to apply mind taking into consideration the
social background, the proceedings in the criminal
trial if a person is convicted and all other relevant
material before passing orders for opening history
sheet or rowdy sheet...”
(iii) A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of MANI
40
BHARATHI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA disposed off on
13.06.2008 observed that ordinarily if no adverse conduct is
noted, for about a year or so, the entry in the Register of
Rowdies has to be struck off. Any discretion has to be exercised

38
2002 CriLJ 3824
39
2000 (1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (A.P)
40
Writ Petition No. 6011/2007 c/w Writ Petition No. 6012/2007

40

in accordance with the rules of reason and justice, said Lord
41
Halsbury more than a century ago. The case of R.G
SOMASHEKAR GOWDA vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE , supra
held that a ‘ rowdy’ is a ‘ goonda’ and that the meaning assigned
42
in analogous statutes such as The Goonda’s Act , 1985 may
aid interpretation of the provisions of Order 1059, that are
aimed at maintaining public peace and for preventing public
nuisance. Similarly, the case of SRI N.G. RAMACHANDRA vs.
43
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE disposed off on 28.02.2013
noted that though the history recorded in the rowdy register
points towards involvement of an individual in disruptive
activities, 30 years having since passed, his ‘ life - boat’
apparently having undergone reformation, his name ought to be
removed from the Rowdy Register.

(iv) In DOMLUR SREENIVAS REDDY vs. STATE OF
44
KARNATAKA disposed off on 13.08.2014, a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court held that the State having failed to produce any
material to connect the acts of the petitioner to the grounds
enumerated in Order 1059, and there being no justification for
making an adverse entry in the Rowdy Register. The case of
45
GANESAN vs. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE held

41
SHARP vs. WAKEFIELD (1891) A.C 173
42
The Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug
Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Trafficking Offenders and Slum
Grabbers Act , 1985
43
Writ Petition No. 26082/2012
44
Writ Petition No. 37261/2012
45
2010 (6) CTC 507

41

that ‘History Sheets’ should not be made mechanically and on
permanent basis, change being the constant, in the life of any
individual. The observations of the court are profitably
reproduced below:
“...The discretion conferred on the Police is both
objective and subjective in nature. Objective
satisfaction with reference to the conduct of the
History sheeted person, to prevent commission or
aiding or abetting of offences, by such persons,
involving breach of law and order. The subjective
satisfaction should be based on valid materials
and it cannot be on the whims and fancies of the
Police Officers. Reading of the Police Standing
Order shows that the discretion conferred on the
Police Officers is in-built, subject to limitations,
including a specific period, provided under the said
orders and is not for an unlimited period, unless
the conduct of the History sheeted person is
required to be monitored continuously...”

VIII. AS TO WHAT EMERGES FROM THE RULINGS ABOVE
MENTIONED :
Before adverting to the marked characteristics, the
46
observations of Brandies, J. in the case of ADAMS vs. TANNER
assumes importance :
“…Whether a measure relating to the public
welfare is arbitrary or unreasonable, whether it
has no substantial relation to the end proposed, is
obviously not to be determined by assumptions or
by a priori reasoning. The judgment should be
based upon a consideration of relevant facts,
actual or possible -- ex facto jus oritur . That
ancient rule must prevail in order that we may
have a system of living law…”





46
244 U.S. 590 (1917)


42

From the perusal of the decisions mentioned in the preceding
paragraphs, the following broad propositions can be articulated:

i) Order 1059 of the Police Manual partakes statutory
character and its provisions answer the wide the wide
definition of law given under Article 13(2) of the Constitution
and therefore, the validity of action taken by the Police
thereunder merits normative examination at the hands of
higher ups in the department.

ii) A ‘ Rowdy Sheet’ may be opened and maintained when there
is material to form a reasonable belief that the individual
concerned has the propensity to disrupt harmony & peace in
the society. Order 1059(10) provides for such a requirement.
However, rowdy sheeting can only be done in regard to the
grounds enumerated under Order 1059(1) & (2). This apart,
in the exercise of this discretion, the authorities have to keep
in mind that adverse entries in the rowdy register or history
sheet have some civil consequences on the liberties of
citizens that are constitutionally guaranteed.

iii) Ordinarily, a ‘ Rowdy Sheet’ may not be opened in respect of
a person merely because a criminal case is registered against
him and something more is required for that consistent with
what is stated in the above paragraphs. ‘History sheets’ are
automatically opened on conviction and subsist for a period
of two years (Order 1054). However, Order 1049(3) provides
that names of persons must be removed from the history
sheet ten years after the expiry of their last sentence; of
course this can be done earlier too if the Superior Police
Officer authorises it.


43

iv) A ‘Register of Rowdies’ in all its parts is to be maintained as
a record of confidentiality. Ordinarily, no opportunity of
hearing needs to be granted at the entry level of the register.

v) Rowdy sheeting though a matter of discretion ought to be
carried out reasonably with and with due deference to the
existing provisions of law as construed by courts.

vi) Rowdy Sheets like History Sheets are also subject to
periodical review. Representations ought to be given due
consideration for deletion/discontinuation of name.

IX. ROWDY/HISTORY SHEETING AND BALANCING OF
INTERESTS:

(i) Learned advocates appearing for the petitioners
vehemently contended that the rowdy sheeting and history
sheeting have grave implications on the rights & liberties
constitutionally guaranteed to the individuals. Learned AGA
justifies this measure on the ground of necessity and in public
interest. Viewed from PUTTASWAMY jurisprudence, what is
argued on behalf of the citizens and what is contended on
behalf of the State appear to be the two extremes. Petitioners
assert that the institution of Rowdy Sheeting should have no
place in a ‘liberty oriented’ regime whereas, the State counters
the same. Mikhail Bakunin (1814 - 1876) had said that the
State is formed on the premise that men are wicked and society
is organized on the assumption that they are virtuous . Keeping
this in mind, a golden balance needs to be struck between the
two opposing claims so that the same shall serve the cause of

44

both the individual interest and the community interest. After
all, our constitution does not guarantee rights and liberties in
absolute terms. It has been a settled position of law that the
private interest to an extent has to yield to the public welfare. In
any organised society, an individual barters away some of his
rights & liberties as a ‘ fair-price’ for being a member of the
community. Therefore, the argument that the institutionalized
Rowdy Register/History Sheeting should be abruptly
discontinued by the stroke of a pen cannot be acceded to.
Ordinarily, what measures are to be put in place in for
regulating the lives of people, is a matter pertaining to the
domain of Executive Wisdom. Our system enjoins a duty that
every organ of the State should show due deference to the
decisions of co-ordinate organs. Arguably, this too is a ‘basic
feature’ of the Constitution. Courts cannot run a race of
opinions with the Executive.
(ii) As already mentioned above, Rowdy/History Sheeting as
an institutionalized State mechanism to prevent social turmoil
and to control crimes has been there since centuries in several
civilized jurisdictions. Its forms & nomenclatures may vary but
its obtainment cannot be much disputed. This fact itself proves
its utility and consequent justification for continuance. Social
scientists say that a social institution that does not
substantially enure to the benefit of community at large would
wither away, sooner or later. The enormous utilitarian value of

45

this police practice justifies the same being institutionalized by
the State, some amount of evil associated with it,
notwithstanding. At the same time, learned Amicus Curiae’s
reliance on an article by CHARLES WAREN & LUIS D.
47
BRADEIS , written more than a century ago, is also justified. A
relevant portion of the said article has been profitably
reproduced below:
“...once a civilization has made a distinction
between the ‘outer’ and the ‘inner’ man...it
becomes impossible to avoid the idea of privacy by
whatever name it may be called – the idea of a
‘private space in which man may become and
remain himself’... ”

(iii) The above having been said, one has to broadly advert to
the likely consequences of Rowdy/History Sheeting: Senior
Advocates, Mr. Sandesh Chouta & Mr. Prasanna Kumar rightly
submitted that the registration of an individual in
Rowdy/History Sheets results into curtailment of his rights &
liberties, or at least it has such a potential. Registration
assumes relevance in matters relating to police surveillance,
externment orders, preventive detention, parading of shady
characters, requisition for weapon deposit, verification of
credentials for private & public employment, furnishing of
inputs to lending agencies & banks, discreet information for
marriage & business alliances. Human mind being what it is,
entries in the Rowdy Register/History Sheets may play as

46

inarticulate factors, albeit in varying degrees, with the decision
makers. In a world of expanding transparency, there is
enormous public gaze & scrutiny of all State actions. Even
classified information somehow leaks to the public domain,
playing havoc with the privacy & autonomy of individuals.
These entries also pose a threat to their reputation, that enjoys
constitutional protection under the umbrella of Article 21 vide
48
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA . An individual
being branded as a ‘ bad character/shady character’ , ‘ goonda’ or
‘ rowdy’ is viewed as an ‘ anti-social element ’. During special
occasions such as elections, festivals, social/political events,
visits of Constitutional/Foreign dignitaries, social turmoil or the
like, their activities are put under acute scanner. Police
surveillance per se casts social stigma that may mar the
political career of the individual concerned. This is where some
mechanism/framework has to be devised to minimize the
damage potential in the light of privacy jurisprudence as
developed in K.S. PUTTASWAMY, supra .

(iv) Learned Advocate Mr. Prasanna Kumar is fairly justified in
contending that persons being tagged as ‘ rowdy’ makes them
susceptible to punitive treatments such as periodic parading &
interrogation based on ‘ antecedents’ & assumed ‘propensity to
re-offend’; Even in matters like the claim for grant or renewal of

47
Charles Warren and Luis. D. Brandeis, ‘Right to Privacy’ , Harvard Law
Review, (4), 193, (1890)

47

Passports, police verification is routinely undertaken in terms of
the Passport Manual which has some statutory force, the same
having been promulgated under the Passport Act, 1967. A
rowdy/history sheeter runs some risk of being denied these
travel documents. This apart, the entries in the Registers are
pleaded as a ground for opposing bail. In S.VENKATESH vs.
49
STATE OF KARNATAKA disposed off on 18.08.2015, a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:
“... the nature of the offences committed by
this petitioner and further the fact that he is
a rowdy sheeter , though two criminal cases
ended up in acquittal and in which charge sheet is
not filed, but the facts and materials placed before
me in this case, I am not inclined to grant bail .
Accordingly, petition rejected.”

Additionally, rowdy/history sheeting, casts a shadow upon legal
proceedings especially when factors such as criminal
background, adverse history & pendency of criminal cases are
some of the relevant factors upon which sentencing of the
convict is ordinarily undertaken vide GURUMUKH SINGH vs.
50
STATE OF HARYANA .

(v) The question of surveillance by the State vis-à-vis
fundamental rights of its citizenry is no longer res integra. In
this regard, the observations of FRANKFURTER, J. in WOLF vs.
COLORADO , supra which have also been quoted in KHARAK
SINGH supra has been profitably reproduced below:

48
(2016) 7 SCC 221

48

“...The security of one’s privacy against arbitrary
intrusion by the police....is the basis of a free
society. It is therefore implicit in the ‘concept of
ordered liberty’ and as such enforceable against
the State through the Due Process Clause. The
‘knock at the door’, whether by day or by night as
a prelude to search, without authority of law but
solely on the authority of the police, did not need
the commentary of recent history to be condemned
as inconsistent with the conception of human rights
enshrined in history and the basic constitutional
documents of English-speaking people...” .

Though, the extent of surveillance ought to be decided on the
tangled knots of specifics projected by each case , the
constitutional threshold of surveillance stops short of
‘squeezing the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to persons’
and surveillance so intrusive that ‘it would offend the dignity of
individuals’ becomes impermissible. The Hon’ble Supreme
51
Court in of TOFAN SINGH vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
observed:
“… The importance of Semayne case [77 ER 194] is
that it decided that every man's home is his
castle and fortress for his defence against injury
and violence, as well as for his repose. William Pitt,
the Elder, put it thus: The poorest man may in
his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the
Crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake —
the wind may blow through it—the storm may
enter, the rain may enter—but the King of
England cannot enter—all his force dare not
cross the threshold of the ruined tenement …”


(vi) A closer examination of the constitutionality of
surveillance as continuously shaped in the judicial process

49
Criminal Petition No. 468 of 2015
50
(2009) 15 SCC 635
51
2020 SCC OnLine SC 882

49

points towards a balanced combination of compelling State
interest, substantive grounds & adequate procedural safeguards.
Viewed from these yardsticks, Order 1059 only provides for a
‘ reasonable belief ’ based on ‘ substantive grounds’ as a sine qua
non for entering the names of individuals to the ‘register of
rowdies’ . However, it must be said that there is a stark non-
existence of adequate procedural safeguards, leaving the
aggrieved with no hope of remedy. This malady has to be
addressed by ensuring ‘due process’ safeguards such as: (a)
opportunity for representation before making entry to the
register; (b) periodic suo motu review of entries in the registers,
(c) review on request for deletion of names; & (d) petition against
adverse decision. What the Apex Court in MOHAMMAD
GIASUDDIN vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, supra is worth
adverting to :
“…Reform of the black letter law is a time-lagging
process. But judicial metabolism is sometimes
slower to assimilate the spiritual substance of
creative ideas finding their way into the statute
book… It is a truism, often forgotten in the hidden
vendetta in human bosoms, that barbarity breeds
barbarity, and injury recoils as injury, so that if
hearing the mentally or morally maimed or
malformed man (found guilty) is the goal,
awakening the inner being, more than torturing
through exterior compulsions, holds out better
curative hopes.”

(vii) In light of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs it
can be safely stated that: the implications of name of an



50

individual being entered, and indefinitely continued in the
‘ Register of Rowdies ’ are far reaching. There are discernible
consequences adverse to the interest of the individual
concerned who may not be an accused . Therefore, there has to
be a due procedure put in place for making or continuing
entries in the rowdy register/history sheets. There also has to
be evolved a proper Grievance Redressal Mechanism against a
wrongful registration of names & their continuation, regardless
of the request of the aggrieved for deletion. The existing
provisions of the Manual as interpreted by the Courts hitherto
supposedly prove inadequate in the light of PUTTASWAMY
jurisprudence which has expanded the content & contours of
privacy and autonomy of individuals.
X. HISTORY SHEETING OF INDIVIDUALS LONG AFTER
ACQUITTAL:
One has to keep in mind that Rowdy Register and History
Sheets have some difference in the light of text of the provisions
of the Manual. Ordinarily, for making an entry in the history
sheet an individual should have undergone some criminal
proceedings that may or may not have ended in conviction.
However, the rowdy sheet stands on a different footing in the
sense that the person whose name figures therein may be a
‘clean slater’. Punishment, in criminal jurisprudence, purges
the guilt, is true. However, it is not that soon after completing
the prison term, one becomes a saint or a savant. Both, legal,

51

social stigma or some kind of disability continues for some
period even after one completes his imprisonment and comes
out from the gaol. Several legislations, more particularly in the
realm of election law, service law and the like encumber rights
of convicts even after they have served the sentence and paid
the fine. On the same analogy, it can be argued that even after a
person successfully comes out with an acquitted he may risk
his name being entered or continued in the history sheets, if
cogent grounds therefore do continue. Merely because a person
is acquitted of the criminal charge or that the criminal
proceedings against him are quashed and since then long time
has lapsed, he cannot as a matter of right seek deletion of his
name from the history sheet on that ground per se. Something
more is required. After all, rowdy sheeting & history sheeting
are not the punitive measures but preventive techniques of
possible disruption of societal peace. In any event, a History
Sheeter can be shifted to the register of rowdies, if there are
cogent reasons for that. However, all these are matters left to
the regulated police discretion.

XI. DUE PROCESS IN ROWDY SHEETING:

(i) Indisputably, basic human rights are universal; however,
their regulation is also a constitutional reality. Restrictions and
regulations on Part III rights, is the trade-off which persons
bear for being members of a civilized community. When law
provides for prevention detention, it cannot be gainfully argued

52

that the rules providing for rowdy registration & history
sheeting are unconstitutional. The rights constitutionally
guaranteed compete with the power constitutionally vested in
the State to restrict them. As already mentioned above, a
golden balance needs to be a struck between these competing
interests. While deliberating the grant of bail, the Apex Court in
GUDIKANTI NARASIMHULU vs. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
52
COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH observed:
“…After all, personal liberty of an accused or
convict is fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse
only in terms of 'procedure established by law'. The
last four words of Art. 21 are the life of that human
right. The doctrine of Police Power, constitutionally
validates punitive processes for the maintenance of
public order, security of the State, national integrity
and the interest of the public generally. Even so,
having regard to the solemn issue involved,
deprivation of personal freedom, ephemeral or
enduring, must be founded on the most serious
considerations relevant to the welfare objectives of
society, specified in the Constitution…”

Thus, the deprivation of liberty of an individual is a matter of
grave concern and permissible only when the law authorizing it
is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of
community good and necessity spelt out in the constitutional
guarantees. Procedural due process rests on the foundations of
the ‘ just, fair & reasonable ’ clause, ensuring that the substance
of the right is not eroded by mere dictates of the black letter of
law. The Apex Court in KESAVANANDA supra , observed as
under:

53

(ii) On similar lines, ‘compelling State interest’ avails as a
ground for restricting personal liberty. However, it has to satisfy
the ‘substantive due process’ clause, as discussed by the Apex
Court in K.S. PUTTASWAMY, at paragraph 45:

requirement’ but rather signifies the content of the procedure
and its quality which must be fair, just and reasonable.
Jurisprudentially, it must be observed that the foundational
blocks of ‘substantive due process’ correspond to inalienable
values of a social order, whence fundamental natural liberties
too are derived . Procedural safeguards in the form of

52
1978 (2) SCR 371

54

‘substantive due process’ too are the dictates of natural law.
Natural Justice is no mystic testament of judge-made juristics but
the pragmatic, yet principled, requirement of fairplay as norms of
53
a civilized justice-system . On due process, RONALD DWORKIN
writes:
“…Our constitutional system rests on a particular
moral theory, namely, that men have moral rights
against the state. The different clauses of the Bill of
Rights, like the due process and equal
protection clauses, must be understood as
appealing to moral concepts rather than
laying down particular concepts ; therefore, a
court that undertakes the burden of applying these
clauses fully as law must be an activist court, in
the sense that it must be prepared to frame and
answer questions of political morality…”

(iii) Law has marched further to include this interpretation of
‘substantive due process’ vide Apex Court decision in K.S
PUTTASWAMY wherein at paragraph 164, it is observed:

of substantive content is left to the wisdom of the legislature,
judicial inquiry is founded upon the realm of processes that
become ‘ due’ when the State authorities in their anxiousness to

53
Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously , Duckworth (1977)

55

protect the public interest may abridge liberty of persons in an
arbitrary, unreasonable & unjust manner .
(iv) Though the institution of ‘ rowdy sheeting’ is evolved by
necessity, the due process clause needs to embedded in the
entire exercise. In K.S. PUTTASWAMY at paragraph 165 it is
observed:

above provides the broad guidelines for identifying areas and
forms of processes that accrue to the individual due to his name
being registered in the Rowdy sheet/History sheet. It may be
said that while the State has a legitimate interest in the
protection of its citizenry, there is also a duty resting on its
shoulders for protecting the individuals as well. In matters of
history sheeting and rowdy sheeting, because of their
implications, the Police should critically examine & adjust the
boundaries between the societal interest and liberties of the
individual concerned. Therefore, arguably, there is a need for a
comprehensive legislation concerning the subject matter post
PUTTASWAMY . Till that is done, the commoners cannot be

56

asked to put up with the legal regime now obtaining,
unsatisfactorily.
In the above circumstances, all these Writ Petitions are
disposed off prescribing the following guidelines for
supplementing the existing position of law relating to Rowdy
Sheeting & History Sheeting:
GUIDELINES FOR ROWDY/HISTORY SHEETING:
i. Before entering the name of an individual to the Register
of Rowdies, the jurisdictional police shall collect and
collate the material information concerning him and
frame the proposal for registration on that basis.

ii. A brief proposal notice shall be sent to the individual
concerned in a sealed cover with an option to submit his
representation within two weeks as to why his name
should not be registered as a rowdy. However, there is no
need to afford a personal hearing. In exceptional cases
notice may be dispensed with for reasons to be recorded
in the Register of Rowdies.

iii. In terms of Clause (5), Order 1059 of the Manual, the
Superintendent of Police or the Sub – Divisional Police
Officer shall not accord approval for entering the name of
individual concerned to the Register of Rowdies without
calling for records and objectively considering the same.
He shall briefly record his reasons for according the
approval and mark a copy thereof to the individual
forthwith, with a mention that he may petition the Police
Complaints Authority, against the same.
iv. The jurisdictional Police shall compulsorily once in two
years, undertake a periodic review of entries in the
Register of Rowdies suo motu , as provided under Clause
(2), Order 1057 of the Manual. However, it is open to the
aggrieved, to make a representation at any time after one
year of registration, seeking deletion of name from the
Rowdy Register on the basis of changed circumstances
such as rectitude, good conduct, social/community
service, etc.

57

v. The representation for review shall be considered by the
jurisdictional Police at the initial level within a period of
30 days, during which necessary inputs may be obtained
through the available sources as to merits of the claim.
The recommendation shall be sent to the jurisdictional
Superintendent of Police or the Sub – Divisional Police
Officer, within 15 days along with the representation &
the material collected thereon. Such recommendation
along with the result of consideration of the
representation shall be communicated to the individual
concerned within next 15 days.
vi. Any individual aggrieved by the rejection of his
representation or continuation of his name in the
Register may petition to the Police Complaints Authority
ordinarily within 30 days. However, no personal hearing
shall avail. The petition shall be disposed off by recording
reasons within an outer limit of 60 days, after
considering the material on record or the fresh inputs
that may be requisitioned, by the authority.
vii. The entire process of Rowdy/History Sheeting from the
stage of issuance of proposal notice as specified above,
up to the issuance of the orders on the petition if any to
the Police Complaints Authority, shall be done only in a
sealed cover procedure and that nothing therein shall be
disclosed nor made available to anyone, except to the
aggrieved, nor any Right To Information (RTI) application
shall be entertained in this regard.

viii. The violation of these guidelines shall constitute a major
misconduct and an adverse entry on proof thereof shall
be made by the Disciplinary Authority in the Service
Register of the erring official after hearing him and a
copy thereof shall be marked to the victim of Rowdy
Register/History Sheet, without brooking any delay.

58

This court places on record its deep appreciation for the
assistance rendered by Amicus Curiae, Mr. Sridhar Prabhu,
Senior Advocates, Mr. Sandesh Chouta, Mr. Prasanna Kumar,
and AGA Mr. Vinod Kumar. It also places on record its
appreciation for the able assistance and research rendered by
its official Law Clerk cum Research Assistant, Mr. Faiz Afsar
Sait.

For information and needful action, the Registry is
directed to send by speed post a copy of this order to:
(i) The Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.

(ii) The Director General and Inspector General of Police,
Government of Karnataka, Bangalore,