The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order of the Superintendent of Police that had opened a history-sheet against a petitioner, holding that the decision was arbitrary, unsupported by legal criteria and violative of fundamental rights. The Court emphasised that the police cannot include an individual in the surveillance register merely because several criminal cases have been registered in the past. Instead, the law requires a well-founded and reasonable belief that the individual is a habitual criminal, supported by clear material, before any such coercive measure can be taken.
The petitioner had challenged the opening of a history-sheet on the grounds that the action lacked justification, as most of the cases registered against him had resulted in acquittals, negative final reports, or quashing of FIRs. Only a single conviction stood against him, which, according to the petitioner, was insufficient to categorise him as a habitual offender. He argued that the police had acted mechanically and without application of mind, merely relying on the number of FIRs rather than the actual legal outcome of the cases. This, he contended, resulted in a serious infringement of his reputation and liberty, as a history-sheet subjects a person to constant surveillance and intrusive restrictions.
In examining the challenge, the High Court scrutinised the relevant provisions of the Police Rules, particularly Rules 4.4 and 4.9, which govern the opening and maintenance of history-sheets. These provisions require that the police must record a reasonable belief, based on strong and credible grounds, that a person is habitually involved in crime or is likely to engage in criminal activities. The Court underscored that a history-sheet cannot be opened on the basis of suspicion, mere registration of cases, or subjective preference of police officials. Instead, it must be grounded in concrete material demonstrating habitual criminal behaviour.
The Court found that, in the petitioner’s case, the police had failed to adhere to these mandatory requirements. The order opening the history-sheet did not reflect any objective assessment, nor did it mention any material indicating habitual criminal tendencies. It merely referred to the existence of previous FIRs, ignoring the fact that most had ended favourably for the petitioner. The Court observed that the mere pendency or filing of cases, without conviction or corroborative evidence, cannot justify branding an individual as a habitual offender. Such an approach, the Court held, not only violates statutory norms but also undermines the constitutional right to life and personal liberty.
The judgment emphasised that history-sheet entries carry serious consequences, as they authorise intrusive surveillance and subject individuals to constant monitoring by the police. Therefore, strict compliance with legal safeguards is essential. Any deviation from the prescribed criteria renders the action illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be quashed.
Concluding that the police order lacked any legal foundation and was passed in an arbitrary manner, the High Court quashed the history-sheet and directed the removal of the petitioner’s name from the surveillance register. The ruling reiterates that law-enforcement authorities must exercise their powers within the bounds of law and cannot curtail individual liberties without a clear, reasoned, and legally sustainable basis.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.