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

The petitioner challenged the order dated 24 August 2017 by which the police entered 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 conduct met the applicable criteria.

The State submitted that the entry was made because of the petitioner’s involvement in criminal cases and activities said to affect public peace, and that it was intended to monitor his activities.

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

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

2. Whether the Court should direct deletion of the petitioner’s name or require the competent authority to reconsider its continuation in the Register.

Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual governs entry in the Register of Rowdies and requires the competent authority to consider the relevant records and material before approving an entry; Order 1057(2) provides for periodic review of entries.

The Court applied the guidelines laid down in Sri B.S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 4504/2021, decided 22 April 2022, which require, among other things, collection of relevant material, notice and an opportunity to make a representation (subject to recorded exceptions), reasoned approval by the competent authority, and periodic review.

The Court considered the impugned order against the requirements identified in Sri B.S. Prakash and concluded that it did not meet the requirements of law.

It therefore held that the authorities had to reconsider whether the petitioner’s name should remain in the Register, applying the prescribed guidelines.

The Court did not itself determine that the petitioner’s name must be deleted.

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, and to complete that exercise within four months of receiving the order.

No order was made as to costs.