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

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner’s representation seeking removal of his name from the history sheet should be considered and determined in accordance with law.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition to the limited extent of directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 12 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

The writ petition was disposed of; no direct order removing the petitioner’s name from the history sheet was made.

01Facts

The petitioner sought removal of his name from History Sheet No. 03/20 maintained by the Woraiyur Police Station.

¶ 1 · p. 1

After submitting a representation dated 12 October 2026, which had not been considered, he filed this writ petition seeking a direction for its consideration.

¶ 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 setting out principles governing the opening, review, extension, and closure of history sheets.

¶ 3 · pp. 2–5

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner’s representation seeking removal of his name from the history sheet should be considered and determined in accordance with law.

¶ 1–2 · pp. 1–2

ii.Whether the Court should itself direct removal of the petitioner’s name from the history sheet on the material before it.

¶ 1, 5 · p. 1, 5

03Law Applied

The Court relied on Police Standing Orders (PSO) Nos. 746–748, as summarized in the Director General of Police’s circular dated 24 April 2019. Under PSO No. 746, a history sheet may be opened for a person believed to be addicted to crime; PSO No. 747 provides for history sheets for persons convicted of specified offences; and PSO No. 748 governs discontinuance and extension, requiring appropriate authority and, for extensions, valid materials and recorded reasons.

¶ 3 · pp. 2–5

The Court also noted that retention of a history sheet must be fair, reasonable, and consistent with the person’s Article 21 rights. These principles were drawn from the Court’s earlier decision in W.P. (MD) No. 19651 of 2017 and the decision in Manivanan v. State, (2013) 7 MLJ 501.

¶ 3 · pp. 2, 4–5

04Reasoning

The Court applied the stated principles by directing the competent first respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation on its merits and in accordance with law.

¶ 5 · p. 5

It did not determine whether the history sheet had been lawfully maintained or whether the petitioner’s name should be removed; those questions were left for the authority to decide consistently with the applicable Police Standing Orders and the principles in the circular.

¶ 5 · p. 5