Madras HC Gives Police 4 Weeks To Decide Man’s Plea To Remove His Name From Suspect History Sheet

In brief

The question

1. Whether the third respondent should consider the petitioner’s representation seeking removal of his name from the history sheet in accordance with the applicable Police Standing Orders and the Director General of Police’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 28 September 2026 and pass orders on its merits and in accordance with law within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

It also directed

The Court did not grant a direct order for removal of the petitioner’s name from the history sheet.

01Facts

The petitioner sought removal of his name from Suspect History Sheet No. 672/2022 maintained by the third respondent.

p. 2

After submitting a representation dated 28 September 2026 seeking removal, and alleging that it had not been considered, he filed this writ petition seeking a direction for its consideration and deletion of his name.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the third respondent should consider the petitioner’s representation seeking removal of his name from the history sheet in accordance with the applicable Police Standing Orders and the Director General of Police’s circular.

p. 2, 6

ii.2. Whether the Court should itself direct removal of the petitioner’s name from the history sheet.

p. 1, 6

03Law Applied

Police Standing Orders (PSO) Nos. 746–748 govern the opening, retention, and discontinuance of history sheets. Under PSO 746, a history sheet may be opened for a person believed to be addicted to crime; PSO 747 provides for history sheets in specified cases of conviction; and PSO 748 governs closure and extensions of retention.

pp. 2–5

Continued retention beyond the prescribed period requires valid material and a reasoned decision by the competent officer; that decision must fairly balance public peace with the individual’s rights under Article 21.

pp. 2–5

These principles were drawn from the Madurai Bench’s decision in W.P. (MD) No. 19651 of 2017 (26 September 2018) and set out in the Director General of Police’s circular dated 24 April 2019.

pp. 2–5

The Court also referred to Manivanan v. State, (2013) 7 MLJ 501, concerning the need for guidance on maintaining history sheets and extending their retention.

pp. 2–5

04Reasoning

The Court treated the governing principles and the DGP’s circular as requiring scrutiny of the material and a lawful, reasoned decision when a history sheet is retained.

pp. 2, 5–6

Since the petitioner’s representation had not been considered, the appropriate relief was to direct the third respondent to decide it on its merits and in accordance with law.

pp. 2, 5–6

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

pp. 2, 5–6