01Facts
The petitioner sought removal of his name from the History Sheet maintained by the fourth respondent and submitted a representation dated 11 October 2026.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–2As the representation had not been considered, he filed this writ petition under Article 226.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–2The Court referred to its earlier order in W.P.(MD) No. 19651 of 2017, dated 26 September 2018, and the Director General of Police’s circular dated 24 April 2019 concerning the maintenance and retention of history sheets.
pp. 2–5 · ¶ 302Issues
i.Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner’s representation seeking removal of his name from the History Sheet
p. 1 · p. 6 · ¶ 5ii.Whether the Court should itself order removal of the petitioner’s name from the History Sheet
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–203Law Applied
Article 226 empowers the High Court to issue appropriate directions to public authorities.
Under the principles set out in the Director General of Police’s circular, a history sheet may be opened under Police Standing Order (PSO) 746 for a person believed to be habitually or predisposed to committing crime, or under PSO 747 for persons convicted of specified offences.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3PSO 748 governs discontinuance and retention: where continued retention is considered necessary beyond the prescribed period, it requires orders by an officer of the prescribed rank, supported by valid material and reasons; the decision must be fair and reasonable and balance public peace with the individual’s rights under Article 21.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3These principles were drawn from the earlier decision in W.P.(MD) No. 19651 of 2017 and the authorities referred to in the circular, including Manivanan v. State [(2013) 7 MLJ 501].
p. 2, 5 · ¶ 304Reasoning
The Court applied the circular’s requirements for reviewing and retaining history sheets, but did not assess whether the petitioner’s history sheet should, on its merits, be removed.
p. 6 · ¶ 5Because the petitioner’s representation remained undecided, the Court directed the first to third respondents to consider it on its merits and in accordance with law, applying the relevant principles.
p. 6 · ¶ 505Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition without ordering immediate removal of the petitioner’s name from the History Sheet.
p. 6 · ¶ 5–6It directed respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 11 October 2026 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.
p. 6 · ¶ 5–6Original Court PDF
M.Syed IbrahimvsThe State of Tamil Nadu Rep., by
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
