Karnataka High Court orders fresh review of rowdy-sheet entry under procedural safeguards including notice and periodic review

The petitioner challenged the order dated 16 July 2022 entering his name in the Register of Rowdies.

He contended that the police had acted without following the Karnataka Police Manual or the guidelines in Sri B.S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka and Others.

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

The petitioner sought certiorari to quash the order.

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

Whether the impugned order should be quashed or the authorities directed to reconsider the continuation of the entry.

The Court relied on the guidelines laid down by the coordinate 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 collate relevant material before proposing an entry; ordinarily give the individual an opportunity to make a representation; and require the competent police authority to call for and objectively consider the records and briefly record reasons for approval.

They also provide for periodic review of entries and a process for representations seeking deletion.

These requirements are grounded in the cited provisions of the Karnataka Police Manual, including Order 1057(2) and Order 1059(5).

Applying the Sri B.S. Prakash guidelines, the Court found that the impugned order did not meet the requirements of law and that the authorities were required to reconsider whether the petitioner’s name should remain in the Register of Rowdies.

The Court therefore directed reconsideration under those guidelines, rather than granting the requested certiorari to quash the entry outright.

The Court issued a mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to reconsider whether the petitioner’s name should continue in the Register of Rowdies, in accordance with Sri B.S. Prakash, within four months of receiving a copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.