Continuation of history sheets against acquitted individuals without pending cases violates fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners are challenging the in-action on part of the respondents in closing the suspect sheet which was opened vide proceedings No.C.No.28/ACP-WZ/2014, dated 04.06.2014 and C.No.32/ACP-WZ/2014, dated 04.06.2014 respectively.

2. The petitioner in WP.No.18717 of 2024 was shown as Accused No.3 in CC.No.771 of 2014 and the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 21.05.2015 by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

3. The petitioner in WP.No.18725 of 2024 was arraigned as Accused No.5 in CC.No.771 of 2014 and the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 21.05.2015 by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have not closed the suspect sheet though there is no other case pending against the petitioners and the only case which was registered against the petitioners ended up in acquittal.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that continuation of history sheet against the petitioners is also a social sigma on the petitioners. It is also submitted that continuation of the history sheet against the petitioners though there is no case pending against the petitioners amounts to interfering with the fundamental rights of the petitioners i.e., right to live with dignity and the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d).

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents submits that a counter is filed and that the Police Standing Orders 602(2) clearly mentioned that nothing precludes the SP/DCP/CP from continuing a history sheet on the sole ground that the history sheeter is not figuring as an accused in the previous five years. It would depend upon the nature of the activities of the history sheeter for continuing the suspect sheet to enable peace and tranquility in the society.

7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the state does not dispute that there are no cases pending against the petitioners; however submits that the petitioners activities would require continuous surveillance for the police to maintain the law and order in the state.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the state and perused the material on record.

9. The following questions would fall for consideration of these writ petitions ;

I. Whether the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of a Citizen is infringed upon on account of continued surveillance under the guise of opening and continuing history sheet ?

II. The scope of judicial review of history sheet / rowdy sheet on the touchstone of reasonableness, arbitrariness and non-application of mind ?

10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are not accused and are not facing trial in any matters. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are not convicted of any offence(s).

11. The stand taken by the respondents, that the Police Standing Orders would empower the respondents to open history sheets/rowdy sheets in order to maintain law and order is not a unfettered right. The Police Standing Orders do not have statutory force. The standing orders are only administrative instructions. It is also not in dispute that the Police Standing Orders which are issued under the Police Act would have statutory force.

12. It is pertinent to refer to Chapter 31 of the A.P. Police Code which contains 24 Standing Orders. They deal with the Station Crime history. Standing Orders 733 to 741 and Standing Order 749 deal with History sheets. Standing Order 742 deals with rowdy sheets. Standing Orders 733 to 737 relating to history sheets reads as follows :

"S.O. 733. Part V-History Sheets:- Part V consists of History Sheet (Form 87) of persons resident permanently or temporarily in the 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.

S.O. 734. Automatic opening