Allahabad High Court quashes lifelong police surveillance, says rubber-stamp approval cannot brand a person a professional criminal

The petitioner challenged the order dated 27 February 2020 by which the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj approved the opening of a Class-B history sheet against him, along with History Sheet No. B-26 maintained at Police Station Meja, Prayagraj.

The proposal had originated with the Station House Officer on 19 February 2020 and was successively recommended by the Circle Officer and Superintendent of Police, Yamunapar.

The petitioner had eight criminal cases registered against him between 2009 and 2015, involving allegations including rioting, assault, intimidation, extortion, criminal breach of trust and murder.

However, one case ended in a final report, several cases resulted in bail, one was compromised and stayed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., one primarily involved non-cognizable offences, and in the murder-related case the petitioner was not charge-sheeted and was exculpated.

The history sheet showed surveillance entries from 2020 to 2024, but no subsequent crime was recorded after 2015.

Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedents justified opening a Class-B history sheet under Regulations 228 and 240 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, which contemplate surveillance of confirmed, habitual, professional or expert criminals?

Whether the Senior Superintendent of Police applied the required independent and reasoned judgment before authorising a measure involving continuing surveillance and consequent interference with the petitioner’s rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution?

Whether the impugned history sheet and approval order were constitutionally sustainable in the absence of material showing that the petitioner posed a continuing danger as a professional or expert criminal?

Regulation 228 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations permits history sheets only for persons who are or are likely to become habitual criminals or abettors, with Class-B sheets intended for confirmed and professional criminals committing crimes other than dacoity, burglary, cattle theft and railway-goods theft.

Regulation 229 classifies history sheets according to the nature of the crime and recognises that Class-B surveillance is intended for the “expert miscellaneous criminal,” generally regarded as incapable of reform.

Regulation 232 provides that Class-B history sheets ordinarily remain open until the subject’s death.

Regulation 240 requires a report and the Superintendent of Police’s approval before a history sheet may be opened, whether on suspicion, conviction or acquittal.

Regulations 236 and 238 authorise surveillance measures including reporting of movements, verification of absences and collection of information concerning conduct.

These provisions must be applied consistently with the freedoms under Articles 19 and 21, including privacy and personal liberty.

Relying on Gobind v. State of M.P. , (1975) 2 SCC 148, the Court held that intrusive surveillance must be confined to persons against whom reasonable material shows a determination to lead a life of crime involving public peace or societal security.

The Court also relied on K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India , (2017) 10 SCC 1, recognising privacy as a facet of Article 21, and Munna Lal Gupta v. State of U.P. , 2016 SCC OnLine All 3023, which held that a history sheet opened without verified facts, reasonable satisfaction and application of mind violates Articles 19(1)(d) and 21.

The Court held that the petitioner’s cases were diverse and did not demonstrate a consistent professional or expert criminal pattern of the kind contemplated by Regulation 228.

Several cases had materially weakened outcomes, including a final report, bail orders, compromise and stay of proceedings, non-cognizable allegations, and exculpation in the case involving Section 302 IPC.

Further, the last recorded offence was from 2015, whereas the history sheet was opened in 2020, with no intervening crime recorded during that period.

The mere fact that multiple cases had been registered, or that the petitioner was allegedly aggressive, did not establish that he was a professional criminal requiring lifelong surveillance.

The approval order was effectively a “rubber stamped approval” and did not explain why the petitioner qualified as an expert or professional criminal or why lifelong surveillance was necessary.

Given the invasive effect of surveillance on privacy, movement and personal liberty, the Senior Superintendent of Police was required to record at least brief reasons demonstrating application of mind to the statutory criteria and the supporting material.

The respondents’ general assertion that the petitioner was a hardcore or nefarious criminal could not substitute for such material or reasoning.

It held that the petitioner’s antecedents did not bring him within the category of a confirmed, professional or expert criminal warranting a Class-B history sheet under Regulations 228 and 240 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations.

The Senior Superintendent of Police had failed to apply his mind or record adequate reasons, and the resulting lifelong surveillance impermissibly affected the petitioner’s rights under Articles 19 and 21.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed, and the approval order dated 27 February 2020 and History Sheet No. B-26 were quashed.

A copy of the judgment was directed to be communicated to the concerned police authorities for compliance.