Continuation of a rowdy-sheet entry must be reconsidered in accordance 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, seeking its quashing and deletion of his name from the register.

He contended that the entry was made without complying with the Karnataka Police Manual and without assessing whether his conduct met the criteria for classification as a rowdy.

The State defended the entry on the grounds that the petitioner’s activities threatened public peace and he was involved in criminal cases.

Whether the petitioner’s entry in the Register of Rowdies, and its continuation, complied with the procedural requirements and guidelines governing rowdy-sheet registration.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring the authorities to reconsider his continued inclusion in the Register of Rowdies.

The Court relied on Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual and the guidelines laid down by the co-ordinate Bench in Sri B.S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 4504/2021, decided on 22 April 2022.

Those guidelines require the police to collect and assess relevant material before proposing registration; ordinarily give the individual notice and an opportunity to make a representation; require the competent authority to call for and objectively consider the records and briefly record reasons for approval; and provide for periodic review of entries, including consideration of representations seeking deletion.

Order 1057(2) of the Manual provides for periodic review, which the cited guidelines require at least once every two years.

The guidelines also apply, mutatis mutandis, to history-sheeters.

Applying the B.S. Prakash guidelines to the impugned order, the Court concluded that the order did not meet the legal requirements governing the entry and continuation of a person’s name in the Register of Rowdies.

It therefore held that the authorities must reconsider whether the petitioner’s name should remain in the register, following the prescribed guidelines.

The Court did not decide that the petitioner’s name must be deleted; it directed reconsideration.

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

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of the order; no order was made as to costs.