Rowdy-sheet inclusion requires sufficient material establishing the person’s involvement in rowdyism.

The petitioner’s name was entered in the Chikkaballapura Town Police Station’s Rowdy Sheet pursuant to an order dated 17 May 2017.

The criminal case against him, C.C. No. 885/2017, concluded after he pleaded guilty and was fined; the State submitted that no other criminal cases were pending against him, but that his name remained on the Rowdy Sheet to monitor his activities.

The petitioner sought to quash the order and have his name removed from the Rowdy Sheet.

Whether the order authorising the petitioner’s inclusion in the Rowdy Sheet could stand in the absence of material supporting that action.

Whether the respondents should be directed to remove the petitioner’s name and discontinue surveillance founded on the impugned order.

Clause 1059 of the Karnataka State Police Manual governs the Register of Rowdies.

It requires prior orders of the Superintendent of Police or Sub-Divisional Police Officer for an entry and provides that names should be entered on the basis of sufficient instances of rowdyism or, in specified circumstances, after a thorough enquiry into a person’s reputation.

In Devadas @ Devaiah v. State of Karnataka, the High Court held that sufficient material must support the inclusion of a person’s name in a Rowdy Sheet.

The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The respondents acknowledged that no criminal cases were pending against the petitioner, and their stated reason for retaining his name was to monitor his activities.

The Court found that the respondents had placed no material on record justifying the petitioner’s inclusion in the Rowdy Sheet.

Applying Clause 1059 and the principle in Devadas @ Devaiah, it concluded that the impugned order lacked the necessary evidentiary basis.

The Court quashed the order dated 17 May 2017 and directed the respondents to delete the petitioner’s name from the Rowdy Sheet maintained by Chikkaballapura Town Police Station and discontinue surveillance consequent to that order.

The order does not prevent the police from taking appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law.