The judgment establishes the principle that the opening or extension of history or rowdy sheets must be supported by detailed orders reflecting the application of mind by police officers and must adhere to the requirement for restrictions on fundamental rights to be fair, just, and reasonable.

1. The petitioner, a tailor by profession, had been branded as a rowdy element by the 3rd respondent and accordingly, a rowdy sheet was opened against him as per Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order vide PSO 749. Contending that opening of such rowdy sheet against him is a serious violation of his personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.

2. The facts leading to this writ petition can be summed up as follows:-

The petitioner is a native of Mudis Town in Coimbatore District where he resides with his wife and two children. On a complaint by one Mr. Simon alleging that he had caused damage to fish worth Rs.200/-, a case in Crime No.50 of 2001 under Section 294(b) and 427 of IPC was registered against him. The Sub Inspector of Police, Mudis Police Station registered another case in Crime No.77 of 2001 for offence under Section 341, 294(b), 506(i) and 109 of IPC and yet another case in Crime No.151 of 2001 under Section 255 of Cr.P.C. Based on the above and from the other inputs he had, the Sub Inspector of Police, Mudis Police Station submitted a proposal to the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Valparai, seeking an order to open a rowdy sheet as per PSO 749. Accordingly, the Deputy Superintendent of Police passed the following order:-

“Open a History Sheet and check him frequently.”

Obviously, the said order is a non speaking order which does not reflect the application of mind on the part of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In pursuance of the said order, a rowdy sheet was opened. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner made an appeal to the District Collector seeking to remove his name from the history sheet. That was not considered. Therefore, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.32495 of 2002 before this court. When the said writ petition was taken up for hearing, the counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer only for a direction to the District Collector, Coimbatore, to consider his representation for removal of his name from the rowdy sheet. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 07.08.2002 with a direction to the District Collector to pass orders on the said representation within a period of 15 days thereafter. In pursuance of the same, the District Collector by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.46477-2002/E-1 rejected the request and declined to remove the name of the petitioner from the rowdy list. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner rushed to this court with this writ petition on 10.12.2002.

3. This writ petition was admitted on 11.12.2002 and from then onwards, this writ petition has been pending. In the meanwhile, as per the Tamil Nadu PSO 748, extension orders were passed periodically every year by the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned. The movement of the petitioner was checked every month by the Sub Inspector of Police and the same was also duly recorded in the rowdy sheet. From the records placed before me, it is seen that though initially it was opened as rowdy sheet, at one stage, it has taken the shape of a history sheet. No reason what so ever has been stated for the change. At this stage, it needs to be mentioned that a history sheet is opened under the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order 746 on certain grounds in Form No.111 whereas, a rowdy sheet is opened under PSO 749 (2) in Form No.112. As I have already pointed out, in this case, at the end, of every English Calendar year, the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned had passed order which uniformly read as follows:-

“Retain this history sheet till ......”

The last such order was passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Valparai on 01.01.2013 which again reads as follows:-

“Retain this History Sheet till 31.12.2013”

It is at this stage, the present writ petition has come up for final hearing.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General and also perused the re