Man’s Request To Remove His Name From Rowdy History Sheet Must Be Decided Within Six Weeks: Madras HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner’s representation seeking removal of his name from the history sheet

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the second respondent, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 21 October 2026 and pass orders on its merits and in accordance with law within six weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

It also directed

It did not order closure of the history sheet.

01Facts

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the police respondents to consider his representation dated 21 October 2026, which requested removal of his name from the history sheet maintained by Karungal Police Station.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–2

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

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner’s representation seeking removal of his name from the history sheet

p. 2 · ¶ 1–2

ii.2. Whether that representation should be considered in accordance with the Police Standing Orders and the applicable directions governing retention of names in history sheets

pp. 2–6 · ¶ 3–5

03Law Applied

The Court relied on the principles set out in the Madurai Bench’s order in W.P. (MD) No. 19651 of 2017 (26 September 2018), as incorporated in the Director General of Police’s circular dated 24 April 2019. Under Police Standing Orders 746 and 747, history sheets may be opened for specified categories of persons; under PSO 748, closure may be ordered, and continued retention beyond the prescribed period requires the relevant authority’s approval. Any extension must rest on valid materials and recorded reasons, rather than discretion exercised arbitrarily. Retention must also balance public peace with the individual’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

pp. 2–5 · ¶ 3

The circular also refers to Manivanan v. State, (2013) 7 MLJ 501.

p. 5 · ¶ 3(k)

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the governing principles require police authorities to assess the materials and reasons supporting continued retention of a person’s name in a history sheet, consistently with the Police Standing Orders and Article 21.

p. 6 · ¶ 5

Since the petitioner’s representation remained unconsidered, the Court directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to decide it on its merits and in accordance with law, applying the DGP’s circular. The Court did not itself determine whether the history sheet should be closed.

p. 6 · ¶ 5