Continuation of a rowdy-sheet entry must be reconsidered in accordance with prescribed 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 quashing and deletion of his name from the register

He contended that the entry was made without following the Karnataka Police Manual and without proper consideration of whether his conduct justified classification as a rowdy

The State supported the entry, stating that the petitioner’s activities were detrimental to public peace and that he was involved in criminal cases

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

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring the authorities to reconsider continuation of his name in the register

The Court relied on Orders 1057 and 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, 1965, and the guidelines laid down by the coordinate Bench in Sri B.S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 4504 of 2021, decided on 22 April 2022

Those guidelines require the police to gather relevant material before proposing an entry; ordinarily provide the person notice and an opportunity to submit a representation; require the approving authority to call for and objectively consider the records and briefly record reasons; and require periodic review of entries, with a process for representations seeking deletion. The guidelines also prescribe timelines and confidentiality for the review process

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

Rather than itself determine whether the petitioner should remain on the register, the Court directed the competent authority to reconsider that question in accordance with the guidelines

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of the order; no costs were awarded