Madras HC Gives Police 6 Weeks To Consider Madurai Man’s Plea To Remove His Name From 2023 History Sheet

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring the respondents to remove his name from History Sheet No. 12 of 2023

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 10 October 2026 and pass orders on its merits and in accordance with law within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

It also directed

It did not itself order removal of the petitioner’s name from the history sheet.

01Facts

The petitioner sought removal of his name from History Sheet No. 12 of 2023, maintained by the fourth respondent, and had submitted a representation dated 10 October 2026 to the respondents for that purpose.

p. 1 · ¶ 1–2 · p. 2

As the representation had not been considered, he filed this writ petition seeking a direction for its consideration and removal of his name.

p. 1 · ¶ 1–2 · p. 2

The Court referred to its earlier decision in W.P. (MD) No. 19651 of 2017 and the Director General of Police’s circular dated 24 April 2019 concerning the maintenance and continuation of history sheets.

¶ 3 · pp. 2–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring the respondents to remove his name from History Sheet No. 12 of 2023

p. 1

ii.2. Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 10 October 2026 on its merits and in accordance with law

¶ 5 · p. 6

03Law Applied

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

¶ 3 · pp. 2–6

Under PSO No. 746, a history sheet may be opened for a person believed to be addicted to crime, with the focus on habituality or propensity; PSO No. 747 concerns persons convicted of specified offences.

¶ 3 · pp. 2–6

Under PSO No. 748, continuation beyond the prescribed period requires the requisite approval and must be supported by valid material and recorded reasons.

¶ 3 · pp. 2–6

The Court also relied on Article 21, requiring a fair and reasonable decision before a person’s history-sheet status is continued, and on the principles set out in W.P. (MD) No. 19651 of 2017, which informed the DGP’s circular dated 24 April 2019.

¶ 3 · pp. 2–6

04Reasoning

The Court applied the principles in the DGP’s circular to the petitioner’s request for removal.

¶ 3–5 · pp. 2–6

It did not assess the underlying material or determine whether the petitioner’s name should be removed; instead, it required the second respondent to decide the representation in light of the applicable Police Standing Orders and the requirement that any continued retention be supported by valid material and sufficient reasons.

¶ 3–5 · pp. 2–6