Prabha Sridevan, J.@mdashIn these four writ appeals, the grievance of the Appellants/writ Petitioners is that they have been cited as History Sheeted Rowdies without any justification. According to them, they are all law abiding citizens. But, on 26.01.2006, the 1st Respondent registered a false case against them and their family members in Crime No. 62/2006 with regard to an incident which is alleged to have occurred at about 21.15 Hours for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 353 and 307 IPC.
2. The facts relating to the said alleged incident are as follows:
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kaliyakavilai Police Station and one Yesudoss, Head Constable, were going on their way to bandobust duty to Kurumbathur Village, where a public meeting was organised. People were gathered on the road sides and they were instructing them to disburse to facilitate free flow of traffic. There were some wordy quarrel between the public and the Sub-Inspector of Police. After the bandobust, when they were returning, a group had allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, intercepted their vehicle and abused and prevented the Sub-Inspector of Police and the Head Constable from discharging their official duty and assaulted the Sub-Inspector. Briefly, this is the gist of the complaint.
3. According to the Appellants, thereafter, the police, without any justification, harassed their family members. Therefore, they have filed a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission and because of the fact that a criminal case is pending, the Commission did not interfere in the matter. The Appellants also filed anticipatory bail applications and there the 1st Respondent reported before the Court that no case has been registered against them and this would prove the unnecessary harassment. It is only thereafter the Appellants came to realise that the police have opened History Sheets against them. According to the Appellants, there is no necessity to include them in the panel of History Sheeted Rowdies. They have never indulged in rowdyism. Pendency of one Single case, without any conviction, will not entitle them to include their names in the list of history sheeted rowdies. According to the Appellants, the unjust inclusion of their names in the History Sheets is a sheer violation of their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore the writ petitions were filed. The learned Single Judge, on a consideration of the counter filed, held that this was not a case where the Court could exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, these appeals have been filed.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants repeatedly submitted that if the records of the Respondents are called for, it would clearly show that opening of history sheets against the Appellants is out of malafides on the part of the police. Learned Counsel submitted that if the proceedings of the Respondents is not quashed, every time when there is an altercation between the police and the law abiding citizen, the police will include him as a history sheeted rowdy.
5. Learned Government Advocate Mr. D. Gandhi Raj submitted that the action taken by the Respondents is strictly governed by the Police Standing Orders. There have been complaints about the Appellants and it is not necessary that there should be continuous activity which brings the individual to the notice of the police to warrant his name being included as history sheeted rowdy. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that there have been several instances where the public and police have had a struggle and it is not as if on all such occasions the police have history sheeted the individuals.
6. Several documents are enclosed in the typed-set of papers. We find that the Petitioner in W.P.2579 of 2008/Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 577/2009 M. Sundaran had sought information under the Right to Information Act regarding the opening of history sheets and the authority under the Right to Information Act has given the following information:
2. History sheeted rowdy sheets were opened in Kaliyakkavailai P.S. on 9.4.2006 against the Petitioner and 3 others. The HS. Sl. Nos. are Sundaran 59/06, Francis 57/2006, James 58/06 and Selvaraj 60/06.
3. Since a case in Kaliyakkavilai P.S. Cr. No. 62/06, u/s 147, 148, 294(b) 353, 307 IPC was registered and too many complaints were received from the public, that the above mentioned persons had been indulging in rowdyism and threatening the public, History Sheets were opened in order to keep them under surveillance to the general interest of maintenance of law and order.
7. Therefore, from this, it appears that there had been complaints from the public regarding the Appellants and after a case in Crime No. 62/2006 was registered, history sheets are opened. We do not think, we can interfere with the decision itself, namely the decision to include them in the history sheets. We can examine whether the decision making process stands the test of judicial review. According to the police, there have been complaints and after the case was registered, which allegedly is an incident when the police was assaulted, history sheets were opened. Police Standing Orders 746, 748, 749(1)& (3), 751 and 758 read as follows: "PSO 746. Part-IV - History Sheets.
(1) Part V(Form No. 111) shall contain the History Sheets of the persons resident permanently or temporarily in their Station limits who are known or believed to be addicted to or to aid and abet the commission of crime, whether convicted or not or who are believed to be habitual receivers.
Only sheet Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 8 are to be maintained in the History Sheet forms in use in Station. Sheet No. 9 should also be maintained, if a photograph of the criminal is available.
Note: This sub-paragraph will not effect the History Sheets maintained in Crime Records Bureau.
(2) At the back of sheet No. 1, below item 7, the following descriptive details should be shown:
Age, Height, Complexion, and Particular marks of identification.
(3) I sheet 8 under heading the "Current doings" entries which are informative and useful based on the facts ascertained both by the Sub-Inspector and his men since the date of last entry, shall be made month-wise for close watch bad characters and quarterly for non-close watch bad characters. Anything of interest coming to notice in respect of a bad character during a month should be entered then and there, without waiting for the end of the month or the quarter.
(4) The entries in the various columns in the History Sheet should be checked by the Sub-Inspector personally and brought upto-date once a year. The fact of such verification should be certified by him in the column under the "Current doings.
PSO 748. Discontinuance of History Sheets:
(1) History Sheets shall be closed by the definite orders of an officer of and above me rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police/Deputy Superintendent of Police and shall be filed in the Station. The History Sheets of persons who have died shall be destroyed under orders of an office of and above the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police/Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police may order the closure of a History Sheet at any time but a Divisional Officer may only do so on the expiry of the period named above.
(2) Where retention of a History Sheet is considered necessary after two years of registration, orders of an officer of and above the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police/Deputy Superintendent of Police must be taken for the extension in the first instance upto the end of the next December and further annual extensions from January to December.
(3) The above orders shall apply to Rowdy Sheets also.
PSO 749. Suspects.
(1) The following persons shall be classed as suspects and History Sheets shall be opened for them under orders of the Superintendent or Divisional Officer, if so empowered by the Superintendent.
(a) Persons once convicted under any Section of the Indian Penal Code are considered to be likely to commit crime;
(b) Persons, not convicted, but believed to be addicted to crime.
(3) The fact that a History Sheet has been opened for a suspect, other than an ordinary criminal shall be kept confidential.
PSO 751. Period of retention of History Sheets of suspects.
History sheets of suspects shall be maintained from the date of registration upto the end of December after which the orders of an Officer of and above the rank of Assistant Superintendents of Police/Deputy Superintendents of Police as to their discontinuance, or retention for a further period from January to December where necessary shall be obtained.
PSO 758. Entries favourable to criminal to be made.
When any information favourable to an individual for whom a History Sheet is being kept, is received, it shall be entered therein.
It is only in these circumstances, after extracting the counter, the learned Single Judge felt that the decision does not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. It is true that in 2008 (3) MLJ 1525 - Vani v. Superintendent of Police, a learned Single Judge had interfered with the continuance of the history sheet and he had taken note from the records that the behaviour of the said persons was beyond reproach and in fact he has noted upon the fact that the police had suspected one lady merely because she was dressed well and another gentleman merely because he was wearing a white shirt and white dhoti and for this conduct the continuance of history sheet was not warranted. In the said decision, the learned Single Judge has observed:
In all these Writ Petitions, the Petitioners have raised questions of far-reaching importance, namely, the rights of citizens of India to lead a free life subject to social control imposed by valid law. The question raised in all these writ petitions at the instance of the alleged disreputable characters cannot be allowed to deflect the perspective of this Court. If the police do what they did to these Petitioners, they can also do the same to the honest and law abiding citizens.
2. The common thread in all these three Writ Petitions are that the actions taken by the respective Station House Officers in opening History Sheets in the name of the Petitioners mechanically counter signed by the respective Superior Police Officers is justified.
10.6. For those entries, without any basis, the Deputy superintendent of Police had been counter signed year after year. In all those entries, it is noted that she was unmarried and she was having bad conduct. But she was found working in an Automobile company at Madurai and she was living with her family, who are doing milk business.
10.7. even after her acquittal by the Criminal Court as early as on 30.9.2007, the Inspector of Police continued to retain her name in the History Sheets. Shockingly, even on 30.9.2007, a note was put up to continue her name under the surveillance list for one more year.
10.8.A perusal of the original file clearly shows that there was no basis for opening a History Sheet in the name of the Petitioner and for making such entries there was no factual basis.
13... In one case the Petitioner in WP. No. 5378 of 2005 was acquitted. In the second case, the Petitioner was on bail and he was also an elected Panchayat President. The notings in the files relating to the second and the third Petitioners, noting were made periodically by the Respondents stating that their conduct was not blameworthy. In the case of the first Petitioner Ms. Vani, an endorsement stating that she is a unmarried woman, living with her parents and working in an Automobile Company, at Madurai but she was having bad character. There was not even an iota of material to support such remark found in the file. Either it shows the subjective opinion of the station House Officer or that it shows their clear animus towards the Petitioners.
16. In the above factual matrix, it is necessary to refer the PSO 746 of Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders providing power for opening history sheets and it reads as follows:
PSO 746. Part-IV - History Sheets.
(1) Part V(Form No. 111) shall contain the History Sheets of the persons resident permanently or temporarily in their Station limits who are known or believed to be addicted to or to aid and abet the commission of crime, whether convicted or not or who are believed to be habitual receivers.
20. Therefore, in the light of the facts narrated and the legal precedents, it must be held that the actions of the Respondents in all the three Writ Petitions are condemnable. Opening of the history sheets in the name of three Petitioners are arbitrary, unreasonable and whimsical and it would amount to denial of right of citizens provided under Article 21 of the constitution of India to have the right of privacy. Though opportunities were given to the Respondents, they have not shown any credible materials to justify their action before this Court. The superior officer though had considerable responsibility to oversee such records have acted in a mechanical fashion to put their initials periodically without any verification."
9. The facts are different here. We have already extracted the information obtained under the Right to Information Act regarding the alleged past conduct of the Appellants and we cannot sit in appeal over this. The stand of the Respondents is that the Appellants have indulged in rowdyism which has given rise to public complaint. But, even according to the Respondents, the present case is the only case registered against the Appellants. Therefore, their continuance as History Sheeters shall be strictly in accordance with the Police Standing Orders. According to the Respondents, the History Sheeters movements are noted, their change of residences are monitored so as to curb the offenders. In
The expression ''personal liberty'' in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19.
10. In the present case, the history sheets were opened on 09.04.2006 and as per the Police Standing Orders, it should come to an end with December, 2007. Neither the counsel for the Appellants nor the Government Advocate has the information regarding whether the history sheet has been continued after December 2007. Police Standing Orders indicate how and in what manner the history sheet can be continued. Therefore, the writ appeals are disposed of directing as follows:
If the History Sheets have come to an end with December, 2007, no further directions are necessary. Otherwise, the Respondents shall strictly follow the above Police Standing Orders before passing any orders. No order as to costs. Connected M.P.(MD) No. 2 of 2009 in all the Writ Appeals are closed.
