Madras HC Gives Madurai Police 4 Weeks to Decide Man’s Plea to Remove His Name From 2003 History Sheet

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner’s representation seeking removal of his name from History Sheet No. 70 of 2003 should be considered by the first respondent in accordance with the applicable Police Standing Orders and guidelines.

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 8 November 2023 and pass orders on its merits and in accordance with law within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

It also directed

No direction was issued to delete the petitioner’s name or close the history sheet outright.

01Facts

The petitioner sought removal of his name from History Sheet No. 70 of 2003, maintained by Anna Nagar Police Station, and had submitted a representation to the respondents on 8 November 2023.

pp. 1–2

As the representation had not been considered, he filed this writ petition seeking a direction to close the history sheet.

pp. 1–2

The Court considered the principles in a 2019 circular issued by the Director General of Police, which drew on earlier decisions of the Madurai Bench.

pp. 2–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner’s representation seeking removal of his name from History Sheet No. 70 of 2003 should be considered by the first respondent in accordance with the applicable Police Standing Orders and guidelines.

pp. 1–2, 6

03Law Applied

Police Standing Orders (PSO) Nos. 746–748 govern the opening, retention, extension, and discontinuance of history sheets.

pp. 2–6

Under PSO No. 746, a history sheet may be opened for a person believed to be habitually or persistently involved in crime; PSO No. 747 concerns specified convictions; and PSO No. 748 governs discontinuance and extensions.

pp. 2–6

Continued retention requires valid material and reasoned orders by the competent authority; it must not be arbitrary and must be balanced against the individual’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

pp. 2–6

The Court applied the principles set out in the Director General of Police’s circular dated 24 April 2019, which referred to the Court’s decision in W.P.(MD) No. 19651 of 2017 and to Manivanan v. State, (2013) 7 MLJ 501.

pp. 2–6

04Reasoning

Rather than deciding whether the petitioner’s name should be removed, the Court directed the first respondent to consider his pending representation.

pp. 2–6

In doing so, it relied on the 2019 circular’s requirements that history-sheet retention be assessed under the relevant Police Standing Orders, supported by valid material and reasons, and consistent with Article 21.

pp. 2–6

The Court left the merits of the representation to the first respondent.

pp. 2–6