Police must reconsider rowdy-sheet entries 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, seeking its quashing and removal of his name from the register

He contended that the entry was made without complying with the Karnataka Police Manual or properly assessing whether his conduct met the criteria for classifying a person as a rowdy

The State submitted that the entry was based on the petitioner’s alleged involvement in criminal cases and activities detrimental to public peace, and was intended to monitor his activities

The petitioner relied on the guidelines issued by a Co-ordinate Bench in Sri B.S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka and Others

1. Whether the petitioner’s entry 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

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

Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual governs the entry of a person in the Register of Rowdies, including the requirement for approval by the Superintendent of Police or Sub-Divisional Police Officer following consideration of the relevant records.

Order 1057(2) provides for periodic review of register entries.

In Sri B.S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 4504/2021, decided on 22 April 2022, the Court laid down guidelines for opening and continuing rowdy and history sheets, including collection of relevant material, notice and an opportunity to make a representation (subject to exceptions), reasoned approval, periodic review, and a process for seeking review or deletion.

Applying the Sri 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 necessary, having regard to the prescribed safeguards and review process.

The Court did not itself determine whether the petitioner should remain on the register; it directed the competent authority to make that assessment 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 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.