Man’s Plea To Leave Rowdy History Sheet Must Be Decided Within Six Weeks, Madras HC Directs Police

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner’s representation seeking removal of his name from History Sheet No. 248 of 2022 should be considered in accordance with the applicable Police Standing Orders and the DGP circular.

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 28 September 2026 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within six weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

It also directed

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

01Facts

The petitioner sought removal of his name from History Sheet No. 248 of 2022, maintained by the Musiri Police Station, and had submitted a representation dated 28 September 2026. As it had not been considered, he filed a petition under Article 226 seeking directions to the police authorities to consider the representation and remove his name from the history sheet.

pp. 1–2

The Court referred to its earlier decision in W.P. (MD) No. 19651 of 2017 and the consequent Director General of Police circular dated 24 April 2019 concerning the maintenance and retention of history sheets.

pp. 2–6

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner’s representation seeking removal of his name from History Sheet No. 248 of 2022 should be considered in accordance with the applicable Police Standing Orders and the DGP circular.

p. 2, 6

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

pp. 1–2, 6

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to issue appropriate directions to public authorities.

The Court relied on Police Standing Orders (PSO) Nos. 746–748, as summarised in the DGP circular dated 24 April 2019: PSO 746 concerns history sheets for persons believed to be addicted to crime; PSO 747 concerns specified convictions; and PSO 748 governs discontinuance and extensions of history sheets. Continued retention must be supported by valid materials and reasoned orders, balancing public peace with the individual’s Article 21 rights.

pp. 3–5

The Court also referred to its earlier order in W.P. (MD) No. 19651 of 2017 and the decision in Manivanan v. State, (2013) 7 MLJ 501, as the basis for the DGP’s guidance on maintaining and extending history sheets.

p. 2, 5

04Reasoning

The Court did not determine whether the petitioner’s name should be removed. Instead, applying the principles in the DGP circular, it directed the third respondent to consider the pending representation on its merits and in accordance with law.

p. 6

The authority must therefore assess the matter consistently with the applicable Police Standing Orders and the requirement for a reasoned, properly supported decision on continued retention.

p. 6