Man Listed On Trichy Police History Sheet Since 2003: Madras HC Gives Police Four Weeks To Consider His Removal Request

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring the respondents to remove his name from the history sheet.

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 3 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

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

01Facts

The petitioner sought a direction to remove his name from History Sheet No. 169 of 2003 maintained by Woraiyur Police Station.

¶ 1 · p. 2

After submitting a representation dated 3 September 2026 to the respondents, and receiving no consideration of it, he filed this writ petition under Article 226.

¶ 1–2 · p. 2

The Court referred to the principles in the Director General of Police’s circular dated 24 April 2019 concerning the opening, review, extension and discontinuance of history sheets.

¶ 3 · pp. 2–5

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring the respondents to remove his name from the history sheet.

prayer · p. 1 · ¶ 1 · p. 2

ii.Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner’s representation in accordance with the applicable Police Standing Orders and the DGP circular.

¶ 5 · p. 6

03Law Applied

Police Standing Orders 746–748 govern history sheets.

¶ 3 · pp. 3–5

Under PSO 746, a history sheet may be opened for a person believed to be addicted to crime, with the focus on habituality or propensity; PSO 747 provides for history sheets for persons convicted of specified offences; and PSO 748 governs discontinuance and extension.

¶ 3 · pp. 3–5

The circular states that extensions require valid material and recorded reasons, and that retention beyond the prescribed period must be balanced against the person’s rights under Article 21.

¶ 3 · pp. 3–5

The Court also referred to Manivanan v. State, (2013) 7 MLJ 501, in connection with the need for guidelines on maintaining history sheets and extending their retention.

¶ 3 · p. 5

04Reasoning

The Court did not determine whether the petitioner’s name should be removed or assess the material supporting its continued retention.

¶ 4–5 · p. 6

Instead, applying the principles set out in the DGP circular, it directed the respondents to decide the representation on its merits and in accordance with law.

¶ 4–5 · p. 6

The decision therefore leaves the substantive question of retention to the respondents, subject to the applicable Police Standing Orders and the requirement for a reasoned decision based on valid material.

¶ 4–5 · p. 6