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

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring removal of his name from the history sheet.

The court held

The Court disposed of the petition without granting an immediate order for removal.

It also directed

It directed respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 15 September 2026 and pass orders on its merits and in accordance with law within six weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

01Facts

The petitioner sought removal of his name from history sheet/rowdy list H.S. No. 12/2021, displayed at the third respondent police station.

¶ 1–2 · p. 2

After submitting a representation dated 15 September 2026 to the first respondent, he filed this petition, stating that it had not been considered.

¶ 1–2 · p. 2

The Court considered the principles in a 2019 Director General of Police circular concerning the opening, review, retention and closure of history sheets.

¶ 3 · pp. 2–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring removal of his name from the history sheet.

¶ 1 · p. 2

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s representation seeking removal should be considered under the applicable Police Standing Orders and the DGP circular.

¶ 3–5 · pp. 2–6

03Law Applied

Police Standing Orders (PSO) Nos. 746 and 747 provide for opening history sheets for specified categories of persons, including persons believed to be addicted to crime and persons convicted of specified offences.

¶ 3 · pp. 3–5

PSO No. 748 governs discontinuance and extension: retention beyond the prescribed period requires orders by the competent officer, supported by valid material and recorded reasons.

¶ 3 · pp. 3–5

The DGP circular dated 24 April 2019 emphasises that continued retention must be fair, reasoned and consistent with the person’s Article 21 rights.

¶ 3 · pp. 3–5

The Court also referred to its earlier order in W.P. (MD) No. 19651 of 2017 and Manivanan v. State, (2013) 7 MLJ 501, concerning proper maintenance and extension of history sheets.

¶ 3 · pp. 2, 5–6

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the DGP circular required the police to assess each case against the relevant Police Standing Orders and the principles governing retention of history sheets.

¶ 3–4 · pp. 2–6

It did not determine whether the petitioner’s name should be removed; instead, it directed the competent respondents to consider his representation on its merits and in accordance with law.

¶ 5 · p. 6