Madurai Man’s History-Sheet Removal Plea Must Be Decided Within Four Weeks, Madras HC Directs Deputy SP

In brief

The question

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

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the third respondent, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oomachikulam, to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 5 August 2026 and pass orders on the merits and in accordance with law within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

It also directed

The Court did not itself order removal of the petitioner’s name from the history sheet.

01Facts

The petitioner sought removal of his name from History Sheet No. 6 of 2018 and had made a representation to the respondents on 5 August 2026.

pp. 1–2

As that representation had not been considered, he filed this writ petition.

pp. 1–2

The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oomachikulam, was the competent authority to consider it; the Court accordingly impleaded that officer as the third respondent.

p. 6

02Issues

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

pp. 2–6

ii.2. Whether the Court should direct the competent authority to decide the representation within a specified period.

p. 6

03Law Applied

The Court relied on the principles set out in its order in W.P. (MD) No. 19651 of 2017, dated 26 September 2018, and the Director General of Police’s circular in Rc. No. 66569/Crime 3(2)/2019, dated 24 April 2019.

pp. 2–6

Under Police Standing Orders (PSO) Nos. 746–748, history sheets may be opened for specified categories of persons and their retention is subject to review and the prescribed approval requirements.

pp. 3–5

Continued retention must be supported by valid material and recorded reasons, with due regard to the individual’s Article 21 rights.

pp. 3–5

The judgment does not set out a separate statutory test for deciding this petitioner’s request; it directs consideration under the circular and applicable law.

pp. 2–6

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the governing principles require police authorities to follow the Police Standing Orders and relevant guidelines when retaining a person’s name on a history sheet.

pp. 5–6

Because the competent authority was identified as the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oomachikulam, the Court impleaded that officer and directed him to consider the petitioner’s representation on its merits, rather than deciding the question of removal itself.

pp. 5–6