Continuation of a person’s name in the rowdy register must comply with prescribed procedural safeguards.

The petitioner challenged the Deputy Superintendent of Police’s order dated 24 August 2017 entering his name in the Register of Rowdies and sought its removal

He contended that the entry was made without following the requirements of the Karnataka Police Manual and without proper consideration of whether his activities met the definition of a rowdy

The State submitted that the entry was justified by the petitioner’s alleged involvement in criminal cases and activities detrimental to public peace, and was intended to monitor his activities

The Court considered the governing guidelines laid down in Sri B.S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 4504 of 2021, decided 22 April 2022

1. Whether the petitioner’s entry in the Register of Rowdies complied with the applicable requirements of the Karnataka Police Manual and the guidelines in Sri B.S. Prakash

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to reconsider the continuation of the petitioner’s name in the Register of Rowdies

Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual governs the entry of names in the Register of Rowdies; under clause (5), the Superintendent of Police or Sub-Divisional Police Officer must call for and objectively consider the records and briefly record reasons for approving an entry

Order 1057(2) provides for periodic review of entries, including a biennial review

In Sri B.S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka and Others, the Court set out procedural safeguards for opening and continuing rowdy or history sheets, including notice and an opportunity to make a representation, reasoned approval, periodic review, and consideration of applications seeking deletion

Applying the Sri B.S. Prakash guidelines, the Court examined the impugned order and concluded that it did not meet the requirements of law.

It therefore held that the authorities were required to reconsider whether the petitioner’s name should remain in the Register of Rowdies.

The Court did not finally determine whether the petitioner qualified for continued inclusion; it directed a fresh reconsideration in accordance with the prescribed guidelines.

The Court issued a mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to reconsider whether the petitioner’s name should continue in the Register of Rowdies, following the guidelines in Sri B.S. Prakash.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of the order.

No order as to costs was made