Facts
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Superintendent of Police’s order dated 24 August 2017 entering his name in the Register of Rowdies, seeking its quashing and deletion of his name from the register.
Source reference: p.2He alleged that the entry was made without following the requirements of Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual or properly assessing whether his conduct met the criteria for classification as a rowdy.
Source reference: p.3The State defended the entry on the basis that the petitioner’s activities were detrimental to public peace and that he had been involved in criminal cases.
Source reference: p.4Issues
Whether the order entering the petitioner’s name in the Register of Rowdies complied with the applicable requirements and guidelines.
Source reference: pp.3, 5–7Whether the respondents should reconsider the continuation of the petitioner’s name in the Register of Rowdies.
Source reference: pp.7–8Law Applied
The Court relied on Orders 1057 and 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual and the guidelines laid down by the coordinate Bench in Sri B.S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 4504/2021, decided on 22 April 2022.
Source reference: pp.4–7Those guidelines require the police to collect relevant material before proposing an entry; ordinarily give the person an opportunity to make a representation; require the competent senior police officer to call for and objectively consider the records and briefly record reasons for approval; and periodically review entries, with a process for representations seeking deletion.
Source reference: pp.5–7The guidelines also prescribe procedures for considering representations and petitions to the Police Complaints Authority.
Source reference: pp.6–7Reasoning
Applying the B.S. Prakash guidelines, the Court considered the impugned order and concluded that it did not meet the requirements of law.
Source reference: pp.7–8Rather than itself directing deletion of the petitioner’s name, the Court held that the authorities must reconsider whether his name should remain in the register, following the prescribed guidelines.
Source reference: p.8Holding
The Court allowed the writ petition and issued a mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to reconsider whether the petitioner’s name should continue in the Register of Rowdies, in accordance with the guidelines in B.S. Prakash.
The reconsideration was to be completed within three months from receipt of the order; no order as to costs was made.
Source reference: p.8Original Court PDF
BASANAGOUDAvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
