Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 50597
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Victoria Gowri, J
D.R.Thaanu – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P.Crl.(MD)No.2990 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Yogeswaran
For the Respondents: D.Rajaboopathy
The maintenance and extension of a history sheet by police must adhere to strict procedural compliance, ensuring that any continuation of a person's name beyond stipulated periods is based on objective, reasoned materials rather than arbitrary decisions, balancing public security with Article 21 rights.
Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the authorities to remove his name from the history sheet maintained by the police, following a pending representation. The court reviewed the legal principles concerning the maintenance, review, and extension of history sheets as outlined in Police Standing Orders and prior judicial precedents. It was determined that the retention of a person's name in a history sheet involves a balance between the maintenance of public peace and the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that such decisions must be based on objective materials and sufficient reasons. The central issue was whether the police authorities acted in accordance with the established legal framework for continuing a person as a history-sheeter. The court's ratio decidendi emphasizes that branding a person as a history-sheeter has significant societal impacts, and therefore, extensions beyond the stipulated periods must be supported by valid, reasoned, and non-arbitrary decisions by the competent police officials as per prescribed circulars and judicial guidelines. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass reasoned orders on merits within four weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks judicial intervention for the removal of his name from the police history sheet. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. history sheet maintenance must balance public peace against constitutional rights under article 21. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court directs authorities to decide on representation regarding history sheet removal within a timeframe. (Para 5 , 6) |
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to remove the petitioner's name from the history sheet which is being maintained by the 3rd respondent, by considering his representation dated 19.05.2026.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Yogeswaran
For Respondents : Mr.D.Rajaboopathy
Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the 1st respondent to remove the petitioner's name from the history sheet which is being maintained by the 3rd respondent, by considering his representation dated 19.05.2026.
2. The petitioner has sent a representation on 19.05.2026 to the respondents seeking to remove his name from the History Sheet No.53 of 2026. 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 d
