2020 Supreme(Mad) 1183

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)
N. SESHASAYEE, J.
Thirumagan and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District and Ors. – Respondents
WP (MD) Nos. 7546, 4716, 8069, 8332, 5939, 15, 7774, 6096, 5913, 5979, 9671, 306, 8066 of 2019, 21040, 19654, 19657, 25185, 21506, 22402 of 2018, , Crl. OP (MD) Nos. 3541 of 2019, 4921 of 2019, 4904 of 2019, 4914 of 2019, 4915 of 2019, 4725 of 2019, 22742 of 2018, 5982 of 2019, 4816 of 2019, WMP (MD) No. 3901 of 2019 in WP (MD) No. 4896 of 2019 and Crl. MP (MD) No. 10307 of 2018 in Crl. OP (MD) No. 22137 of 2018
Decided On : 03-07-2020

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 107, 109, 110, 468 – History-sheet – Petitioners in this batch of cases impugn the decision of the police to history-sheet them, though the reliefs sought in the petitions are couched differently. – They are an oft frequented category of cases that visits this Court, and they rarely show any respite, despite a few template judgments, (to which necessary reference would be made at appropriate places) of this court on the point. – The pith of the ratio in these judgments primarily emphasizes that the decision to history-sheet a convict or a suspect should not be arbitrarily resorted to. – The principles they have laid down are informative study material for guiding and educating the police in their approach to history-sheeting. – Contextually, are not the pronouncements of this Court adequate enough to sensitize the police officials on the manner of exercise of their power to history-sheet an individual? – The experience however, has been disappointing, as the attitude of the police official to history-sheeting is seen varying from plain ignorance to abject indifference in following the principles laid down. – Held, Court on vigil, therefore, is under a Constitutional duty to ensure, that the freedom as an experience which the Constitution serves to the citizens, is not defiled by a non-statutory administrative action, and that a balance is required to be struck between the right of the citizen to protest and dissent, and the need for preventive policing. – Court senses a duty to step in, and to provide necessary correctives, without necessarily unsettling the present process and the procedure involved in it (till an alternative found), where this Court is guided by the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Vishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan [(1997) 6 SCC 241] and Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India & Ors., [(2017) 9 SCC 1]. – To repeat, this is done as a temporary measure with a limited shelf-value, till the statutory law, or any Executive Order having the force of law are made. – Having spotted certain vagueness and internal inconsistencies in the choice of expressions which the PSO employ, and the constant threat they pose to the fundamental right, that ultimately lead to unnecessary and avoidable litigations before this Court, it is necessary to harmonize and iron out the ambiguities they produce till legislative alternatives are found. – The police personnel may have to be provided with clear parameters for exercising their power to history sheet, for doing which this Court draws strength from the ratio in Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2004)8 SCC 788] and B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & another – This is in addition to the principles or directions given earlier namely: (a) The decision to history sheet, or retaining one in the history sheet must be on tangible materials and on an objective basis as declared in Ganesan case [2010(6) CTC 507] (b) and the ratio of this Court in Sabari case [2018-2-LW. (Crl.)817], wherein this Court has held that mere registration of a FIR under Sec. 109 and 110 Cr.P.C. cannot justify an action of the police to retain the name in the history sheet. – There should have been a concluded proceedings. – Order Accordingly