Police must reconsider rowdy-sheet continuation in accordance with prescribed procedural safeguards.

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

He sought quashing of the order and deletion of his name, contending that the entry was made without complying with the Karnataka Police Manual and without properly assessing whether his conduct 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 activities considered detrimental to public peace and tranquillity.

Whether the petitioner’s entry in the Register of Rowdies complied with the applicable requirements and guidelines

Whether the respondents should be directed to reconsider the continuation of the petitioner’s name in the Register of Rowdies

The Court relied on Orders 1057 and 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, 1965, and the guidelines 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 relevant information before proposing an entry; ordinarily provide the individual an opportunity to make a representation; require the competent approving authority to call for and objectively consider the records and briefly record reasons; and provide for periodic review of entries.

They also prescribe procedures for considering representations seeking deletion.

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

It therefore considered reconsideration of the petitioner’s continued inclusion in the Register necessary, directing the competent authority to undertake that exercise in accordance with the guidelines.

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 B.S. Prakash, within three months from receipt of the order.

No order as to costs was made.