Madras HC Gives Inspector 4 Weeks To Decide Man’s Request To Remove His Name From 2017 History Sheet

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner’s representation seeking removal of his name from the history sheet and its closure should be considered in accordance with the applicable Police Standing Orders and the DGP’s circular.

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 26 October 2026 and pass orders on its merits and in accordance with law within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

It also directed

The Court did not itself order closure of the history sheet or removal of the petitioner’s name.

01Facts

The petitioner sought removal of his name and closure of History Sheet No. 392 of 2017, maintained at Keerathurai Police Station.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–2

After submitting a representation dated 26 October 2026 to the respondents, he filed this writ petition alleging that it had not been considered.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–2

The Court referred to its earlier decision in W.P. (MD) No. 19651 of 2017 and the consequent Director General of Police circular dated 24 April 2019 concerning the opening, review, extension, and closure of history sheets.

pp. 2–6 · ¶ 3–4

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner’s representation seeking removal of his name from the history sheet and its closure should be considered in accordance with the applicable Police Standing Orders and the DGP’s circular.

p. 6 · ¶ 5

ii.Whether the Court should itself direct closure of the history sheet or instead require the competent police authority to decide the representation on its merits.

p. 1, 6 · ¶ 1, 5

03Law Applied

Police Standing Orders (PSO) Nos. 746–748 govern history sheets: PSO No. 746 concerns persons believed to be habitually or persistently engaged in crime; PSO No. 747 provides for history sheets in specified conviction cases; and PSO No. 748 addresses discontinuance and extension.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3

Continued retention beyond the prescribed period requires the appropriate authority’s order, supported by valid materials and reasons, rather than arbitrary decision-making.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3

The Court also relied on Article 21, requiring a fair and reasonable decision before a person’s name is retained as a history-sheeter, and the DGP’s circular dated 24 April 2019, which set out these principles by reference to prior decisions, including Manivanan v. State, (2013) 7 MLJ 501.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 3–4

04Reasoning

The Court did not determine whether the petitioner’s name should in fact be removed.

p. 6 · ¶ 5

It treated the principles in the DGP’s circular as applicable to the decision on his representation and directed the third respondent to consider it on its merits and in accordance with law.

p. 6 · ¶ 5

This left the merits to the police authority, which must apply the governing Police Standing Orders and the requirement of a reasoned, fair decision when deciding whether continued retention is justified.

pp. 3–6 · ¶ 3–5