Top Court asks Police Authorities to make sure that no mechanical entries of innocent individuals belonging to backward communities are made in History Sheet, suggests periodic audit mechanism to scrutinize such entries
Justices Surya Kant & K. V. Viswanathan [07-05-2024]

Read Order: AMANATULLAH KHAN v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI & ORS [SC- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2349 OF 2024

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, May 8, 2024: Taking note of the allegations that Police Diaries are maintained selectively of individuals based solely on caste-bias, the Supreme Court has directed all the State Governments to take necessary preventive measures to safeguard such communities from being subjected to inexcusable targeting or prejudicial treatment.

The appellant-Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan, had approached the Delhi High Court through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the ‘History Sheet’ opened against him and the proposal to declare him as ‘Bad Character’ with the entry of sim name in the Surveillance ‘Register-X, Part II, Bundle A’ at Delhi's Jamia Nagar Police Station. Vide the impugned judgment, the Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, giving rise to these proceedings.

Upon notice, the Delhi Police entered appearance through its Counsel Sanjay Jain who was apprised of some disturbing contents of the History Sheet to the extent it pertained to the school going minor children of the appellant and his wife, against whom there was apparently no adverse material whatsoever for inclusion in the History Sheet. It was then apprised that the format of the history sheeters was prescribed following Rule 23.8 and Rule 23.9 of the Punjab Police Rules 1934 as were applicable in the NCT of Delhi. 

The Counsel for the respondents, however, fairly agreed to re-visit the archaic rules with a view to ensure that the dignity, self-respect and privacy of the innocent people, who incidentally happen to be the family members of a suspect, is not compromised at any cost.

Referring to the amended Standing Order No.L&O/54/2022 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, the Division Bench of Justice Surya Kant & Justice K. V. Viswanathan noted that in the column “relations and connections”, it had been decided that identities of only those persons shall be reflected who can afford the history sheeter/bad character shelter, when the offender is running/wanted by the police and it shall also include names of his associates in crime, abettors and receivers. The amended Standing Order also states that no details of any minor relatives, i.e., son, daughter, siblings shall be recorded anywhere in the History Sheet unless there is evidence that such minor, has or earlier had, afforded shelter to the offender. The safeguard with regard to the details of phone numbers, Aadhar Card, EPIC number, e-mail I.D., social media accounts etc., have also been suggested in the amended Standing Order.

The amended provision also mandates that Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 shall be meticulously followed, whereunder there is a prohibition on disclosing the identity of a child in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection or a child victim or a witness of a crime through a report etc.

Coming back to the case in hand, the Bench opined that the decision taken by the respondents to the effect that the History Sheet is only an internal police document and it shall not be brought in public domain, largely addressed the concern expressed by it. “Secondly, the extra care and precaution, to be now observed by a police officer while ensuring that the identity of a minor child is not disclosed as per the law too, is a necessary step to redress the appellant’s grievances. It will surely prevent the undesirable exposure that has been given to the minor children in this case”, it added.

The amended order states that no details of any minor relatives, i.e., son, daughter, siblings shall be recorded anywhere in the History Sheet.

Thus, directing that the amended Standing Order dated be given effect forthwith in the appellant’s case, the Bench also ordered the Commissioner of Police to designate a senior police, in the rank of Joint Commissioner of Police or above, who would periodically audit/review the contents of the History Sheets and ensure confidentiality and a leeway to delete the names of such persons/juvenile/children who are, in the course of investigation, found innocent and are entitled to be expunged from the category of “relations and connections” in a History Sheet.

Moreover, in exercise of its suo motu powers, the Top Court proposed to expand the scope of these proceedings so that the police authorities in other States and Union Territories may also consider the desirability of ensuring that no mechanical entries in History Sheet are made of innocent individuals, simply because they happen to hail from the socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, along with those belonging to Backward Communities, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes. 

Noticing the allegations that Police Diaries are maintained selectively of individuals belonging to Vimukta Jatis, based solely on caste-bias, a somewhat similar manner as happened in colonial times, the Bench held, “All the State Governments are therefore expected to take necessary preventive measures to safeguard such communities from being subjected to inexcusable targeting or prejudicial treatment.”

Further stating that the value for human dignity and life is deeply embedded in Article 21 of our Constitution, the Bench held, “It seems that a periodic audit mechanism overseen by a senior police officer, as directed for the NCT of Delhi, will serve as a critical tool to review and scrutinize the entries made, so as to ascertain that these are devoid of any biases or discriminatory practices.”

The Bench concluded the matter by further holding, “We, therefore, deem it appropriate, at this stage, to direct all the States/Union Territories to revisit their policy-regime and consider whether suitable amendments on the pattern of the ‘Delhi Model’ are required to be made so that our observations made in paragraphs 14 to 16 of this order can be given effect in true letter and spirit.”