Madurai HC Gives Police Inspector 4 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 in accordance with the applicable Police Standing Orders and the DGP’s circular.

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the third respondent, the Inspector of Police, Vickramasingapuram Police Station, to consider the representation dated 17 September 2026 and pass orders on its merits and in accordance with law within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

It also directed

No direction for immediate removal from the history sheet was issued.

01Facts

The petitioner sought removal of his name from History Sheet No. 538/2026 maintained by the Inspector of Police, Vickramasingapuram Police Station.

pp. 1–2

After submitting a representation dated 17 September 2026 to the authorities, he filed this writ petition alleging that it had not been considered and seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to decide it.

pp. 1–2

The Court referred to its earlier decision in W.P. (MD) No. 19651 of 2017 and the consequent circular issued by the Director General of Police on 24 April 2019.

pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner’s representation seeking removal of his name from the history sheet should be considered in accordance with the applicable Police Standing Orders and the DGP’s circular.

pp. 2–6

ii.Whether the Court should direct removal of the petitioner’s name from the history sheet, or instead direct the competent police authority to decide the representation on its merits.

p. 1, 6

03Law Applied

The Court relied on Police Standing Orders (PSO) Nos. 746–748, as set out in the DGP’s circular dated 24 April 2019.

pp. 3–5

Under PSO 746, a history sheet may be opened for a person believed to be habitually or persistently involved in crime; PSO 747 provides for history sheets relating to persons convicted of specified offences; and PSO 748 governs discontinuance and extension.

pp. 3–5

The circular states that extension beyond the prescribed period must be supported by valid materials and reasoned orders, with due regard to the individual’s Article 21 rights.

pp. 3–5

The circular drew on this Court’s decision in W.P. (MD) No. 19651 of 2017 and the principles discussed in Manivanan v. State, (2013) 7 MLJ 501.

p. 2, 5

04Reasoning

Applying the DGP’s circular, the Court directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation and decide it on the merits and in accordance with law.

p. 6

It did not assess the underlying materials or determine whether the petitioner’s name should be removed.

p. 1, 6

The decision therefore required lawful consideration of the representation rather than granting the requested removal directly.

p. 1, 6