Police must decide history-sheet removal requests on their merits and in accordance with law.

The petitioner sought removal of his name from History Sheet No. 1 of 2015 maintained by the police.

After submitting a representation dated 6 August 2026 and receiving no decision, he filed a writ petition seeking a direction that the respondents consider it.

The Court referred to principles previously set out in W.P. (MD) No. 19651 of 2017 and incorporated in a Director General of Police circular dated 24 April 2019.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring the police to consider his representation seeking removal of his name from the history sheet.

Police Standing Orders (PSO) Nos. 746–748 govern the opening, retention, extension, and closure of history sheets.

Under the principles set out in the DGP’s circular dated 24 April 2019, continued retention must be supported by valid material and reasoned orders by the competent authority; extensions cannot be made arbitrarily.

Retention must also be fair and reasonable and balance public peace with the individual’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court relied on the principles drawn from its earlier order in W.P. (MD) No. 19651 of 2017 and the cited decision in Manivanan v. State, (2013) 7 MLJ 501.

The Court did not determine whether the petitioner’s name should in fact be removed.

It noted that the governing principles require the police to assess the continued retention of a history sheet in accordance with the Police Standing Orders, on relevant material and with proper reasons.

It therefore directed the Inspector of Police to decide the petitioner’s pending representation on its merits and in accordance with law.

The writ petition was disposed of; no direction to remove the petitioner’s name was issued.