Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49696
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
L. Victoria Gowri, J
K. Sureshkumar – Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Police – Respondent
W.P.Crl.(MD)No.2989 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T. Thirumurugan
For the Respondents: D. Rajaboopathy
The retention of a person's name in a history sheet beyond the stipulated period requires a fair, reasoned decision based on objective materials, ensuring that public interest in crime control is balanced with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to remove his name from a history sheet maintained under a specific file number by the police, citing a representation made to the authorities. The court considered the established legal framework for maintaining and continuing history sheets as stipulated in the Police Standing Orders and previous judicial precedents. The main issue was whether the retention of the petitioner's name in the history sheet complied with the mandated procedures and the fundamental rights of the individual. The court held that maintaining a history sheet must be balanced with the right to dignity and privacy under the Constitution, requiring police authorities to record objective reasons for extensions beyond the period stipulated in the Police Standing Orders. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation on merits within a period of four weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks administrative action via writ petition to challenge police record maintenance. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. history sheet retention must adhere to police standing orders and constitutional guarantees of fairness. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. mandate issued for timely administrative consideration of the petitioner's grievance. (Para 5 , 6) |
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to remove the petitioner's name from the History sheet in HS.No..3 of 2019 maintaining on the file of the respondent no.3 by considering the petitioner's representations dated 29.05.2026 within the time framed by this Court.
ORDER
1. This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to remove the petitioner's name from History sheet in HS.No..3 of 2019 on the file of the respondent no.3 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 29.05.2026 within the time framed by this Court.
2. The petitioner has sent a representation on 29.05.2026 to the respondents seeking to remove his name from the History Sheet No.3 of 2019. Since the same was not considered, this writ petition is filed.
3. The issue involved in this writ petition has already been dealt with by the Madurai Bench of this Court and detailed order has been passed in W.P. (MD)No.19651 of 2017 on 26.09.2018. On the basis of the above said Order, the Director General Of Police, Chennai issued a circular in Rc.No. 66569/Crime 3(2)/2019 dated 24.04.2019, which reads as follows :-
“7. From the above judgments the following principles emerge insofar as history sheeters are concerned:
a. In order to facilitate the study of crime and criminals, the Police Standing Orders provides a mechanism, whereby every Police Station shall maintain a crime history, which shall be a confidential record. In this record all cases of crime that are mentioned in PSO No.742, which provides various classes of crime, shall be entered and even an attempt to commit those offences, are entered in the records maintained in the Police Station.
b. These crime records maintained by the Various Police Stations shall be reviewed every year by the Inspector of Police of the concerned Police Station. On such review, the Inspector of Police has to furnish a concise appreciation of the year's crime for the benefit of the Superior Officers and also to make suggestions in order to improve the quality of crime control. The review undertaken by the Inspector of Police is not merely a catalogue of the crime in the year. It should reflect the valuable suggestions in order to prevent such crimes in future and to provide ways and means of handling serious offences in an effective manner.
c. History Sheet can be opened by the concerned Police Station under two circumstances. The first circumstance is provided under PSO No.746, which states that the history sheet can be opened against a person who is a resident (permanently or temporarily) within the station limit, who is known or believed to be addicted to commission of crime, whether convicted or not. Here the thrust is on the habituality or the propensity to commit a crime by a person, which is sought to be monitored by opening a history sheet.
d. The second category of persons against whom history sheet can be opened are the persons, who are convicted for various offences that has been listed in PSO No.747, wherein opening of the history sheet is automatic.
e. In the first category of opening history sheet, month wise scrutiny or a close watch on the person concerned is contemplated. Here also there is sub-categorization as, close watch bad characters and non-close watch bad characters. In the former, the entry shall be made month wise and in the later, the entry shall be made once in a quarter. What is entered is normally anything of interest in respect of the bad character, which goes to the notice of the Police. These records must be checked and brought up to da
