Continuation of a rowdy sheet without pending cases infringes on fundamental rights, including the right to dignity and privacy, and lacks legal justification under police standing orders.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is challenging the in-action on part of the respondents in closing the rowdy sheet No.357.

2. The petitioner in was shown as A.2 in CC.No.787 of 2018 and the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 30.09.2019 by the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur and A.6 in SC.No.560 of 2021 and the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 30.03.2022 by the learned IV Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur.

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

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

5. 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 rowdy sheet on the sole ground that the history/rowdy sheeter is not figuring as an accused in the previous five years. It would depend upon the nature of the activities of the history/rowdy sheeter for continuing the suspect sheet to enable peace and tranquility in the society.

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

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

8. 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 ?

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

10. The stand taken by the respondents, that the Police Standing Orders would empower the respondents to open history sheet/rowdy sheet 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.

11. 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 of History Sheets:

(1) History sheets shall be opened automatically at the time of conviction for persons convicted as under and shall be retained for two years after release from jail.

(2) Persons convicted as above will be styled 'k