Facts
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Superintendent of Police’s order dated 24 August 2017 entering his name in the Register of Rowdies and sought deletion of his name from the register.
Source reference: p. 2He contended that the entry was made without following the requirements of the Karnataka Police Manual and without properly assessing whether his conduct fell within the meaning of “rowdy”.
Source reference: pp. 3–4The State supported the entry, submitting that it was based on the petitioner’s alleged involvement in criminal cases and activities detrimental to public peace.
Source reference: p. 4Issues
1. Whether the petitioner’s continued inclusion in the Register of Rowdies required reconsideration in light of the applicable legal requirements and guidelines.
Source reference: pp. 5, 72. Whether the impugned order met the requirements governing the opening and continuation of a rowdy sheet.
Source reference: pp. 5, 7Law Applied
Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual governs the opening of a Register of Rowdies, including the required approval and consideration of relevant material; Order 1057(2) provides for periodic review of entries.
Source reference: pp. 5–6In Sri B.S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 4504/2021, decided 22 April 2022, the Court laid down guidelines for opening and continuing rowdy/history sheets. These include collecting and considering relevant material, ordinarily giving the affected person notice and an opportunity to make a representation, recording reasons for approval, and periodically reviewing the entry.
Source reference: pp. 5–7Reasoning
Applying the B.S. Prakash guidelines and the Karnataka Police Manual, the Court considered whether the impugned order justified continuation of the petitioner’s name in the register.
Source reference: p. 7It found that the order did not meet the requirements of law and therefore held that the authorities must reconsider whether the petitioner’s name should remain in the Register of Rowdies, following the prescribed guidelines.
Source reference: p. 7Holding
The writ petition was allowed.
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 B.S. Prakash, within three months of receiving a copy of the order.
Source reference: pp. 7–8No order was made as to costs.
Source reference: pp. 7–8Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.
Karnataka Police Manual1
Original Court PDF
PRABHUGOUDAvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
