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

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner’s representation seeking removal of his name from the history sheet should be considered by the police authorities in accordance with the applicable Police Standing Orders and guidelines.

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 21 October 2026 and pass orders on its merits and in accordance with law within six weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

It also directed

No direct order for removal from the history sheet was made.

01Facts

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to remove his name from History Sheet No. 5/2023 maintained by Wooraiyur Police Station.

pp. 1–2

He had submitted a representation dated 21 October 2026 seeking removal, but it had not been considered; he therefore filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

pp. 1–2

The Court referred to its earlier decision in W.P. (MD) No. 19651 of 2017 and the subsequent circular issued by the Director General of Police.

p. 2, 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner’s representation seeking removal of his name from the history sheet should be considered by the police authorities in accordance with the applicable Police Standing Orders and guidelines.

pp. 1–2, 5

ii.2. Whether the Court should itself direct removal of the petitioner’s name, or instead direct the authorities to decide the representation on its merits.

pp. 1, 5–6

03Law Applied

Article 226 empowers the High Court to issue appropriate directions to public authorities. The Court applied Police Standing Orders (PSO) Nos. 746–748, as set out in the Director General of Police’s circular dated 24 April 2019: PSO 746 concerns history sheets for persons believed to be addicted to crime; PSO 747 provides for history sheets in specified conviction cases; and PSO 748 governs discontinuance and extension of history sheets. Retention beyond the stipulated period requires valid material and reasoned orders by the competent authority, balancing public peace with the individual’s rights under Article 21.

pp. 3–5

The Court relied on the principles identified in W.P. (MD) No. 19651 of 2017, dated 26 September 2018, and referred to Manivanan v. State, (2013) 7 MLJ 501, concerning the need for clear guidance on maintaining and extending history sheets.

p. 2, 5

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the governing circular required the police to assess whether the applicable Standing Orders had been followed and whether continued retention was supported by valid material and sufficient reasons.

p. 5

Because the petitioner’s representation had not been considered, the Court directed the respondents to decide it on its merits and in accordance with law. It did not determine whether the petitioner’s name should be removed; that decision was left to the police authorities.

p. 5