Police must reconsider continued rowdy-sheet entries in accordance with prescribed safeguards.

The petitioner challenged the Deputy Superintendent of Police’s order dated 24 August 2017 entering his name in the Register of Rowdies.

He alleged that the entry was made without following the requirements of the Karnataka Police Manual or assessing whether his activities met the definition of a rowdy.

The State supported the entry, stating that it was based on the petitioner’s involvement in criminal cases and concern for public peace.

The petitioner sought quashing of the order and deletion of his name from the register.

1. Whether the petitioner’s entry in, and continued inclusion in, the Register of Rowdies complied with the requirements of the Karnataka Police Manual and the guidelines in Sri B.S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka.

2. Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to reconsider the continuation of the petitioner’s name in the register.

The Court relied on Orders 1057 and 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, 1965, and the guidelines laid down by a Co-ordinate Bench in Sri B.S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 4504/2021, decided on 22 April 2022.

Those guidelines require the police to collect and assess relevant material before proposing registration; ordinarily give the individual notice and an opportunity to make a representation; require the competent senior officer to call for and objectively consider the records and briefly record reasons for approval; and require periodic review of entries, including consideration of representations seeking deletion.

The Court also noted that the guidelines prescribe review and complaint procedures and apply, mutatis mutandis, to history-sheeters.

Applying the B.S. Prakash guidelines, the Court considered the impugned order and concluded that it did not satisfy the requirements of law.

It therefore held that the authorities must reconsider whether the petitioner’s name should remain in the Register of Rowdies, following those guidelines.

The judgment does not specify which individual procedural requirement was deficient.

The Court 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 Sri B.S. Prakash.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of the order.

No order was made as to costs.