Void Marriage Cannot Confer Legal Status: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Injunction Against Woman Claiming Wife’s Status in Bigamy Dispute Mere Presence or Relationship Is Not Enough—Prosecution Must Prove Participation and Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Allahabad High Court Evidence of Injured Eye-Witnesses Must Be of Sterling Quality — Not of a Doubtful and Tainted Nature: Bombay High Court Acquits Five Life Convicts in Murder Case Refund of Provisional Pilferage Amount Is Lawful If Theft Not Proved: Calcutta High Court Upholds Acquittal in Electricity Theft Case Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Cannot Be Rejected by Conducting Mini-Trial on Disputed Facts: Delhi High Court Section 17 PWDV Act | Senior Citizen’s Peace Trumps Daughter-in-Law’s Residence Right Where Alternative Accommodation Provided: Delhi High Court Access Must Meet Agricultural Necessities, Not Mere Pedestrian Use: Karnataka High Court Modifies Easement Width from 3 to 6 Feet Section 302 IPC | Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof: Kerala High Court Acquits Man in Septic Tank Murder Case Domestic Violence Allegations Can’t Always Be Painted as Attempt to Murder: Meghalaya High Court Invokes Section 482 CrPC to Quash Matrimonial Assault Case Post-Settlement Landlord Is Best Judge Of His Need; Son’s Residence In Delhi No Ground To Deny Eviction For Hotel Project: Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Eviction Tribunal Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Grant-In-Aid Related Disputes: Orissa High Court Rejects Writ Appeal in Lecturer Promotion Case Educational Institutions Have No Lien Over Students' Future: Rajasthan High Court Slams Withholding of Certificates for Fee Recovery Mere Allegation of Forged Revenue Entries Not Enough to Disturb Settled Possession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Plea for Injunction Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court

History Sheets Should Not Be Misused to Compromise the Dignity and Privacy of Innocent Individuals” – Supreme Court Directs Revision of Police Surveillance Practices

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant verdict aimed at protecting the privacy and dignity of individuals, the Supreme Court of India today directed a revision of the protocol concerning the inclusion of individuals in police “History Sheets,” particularly criticizing the undue inclusion of minors and innocent family members.

The appeal arose from the decision of the Delhi High Court which had dismissed a writ petition challenging the inclusion of the appellant’s minor children in his ‘History Sheet’ under the police surveillance records. The appellant, represented by Senior Advocate, contended that this inclusion was a violation of the rights to privacy and dignity under the Constitution.

The issue began when the appellant’s name, along with those of his minor children, was entered into the ‘History Sheet’ at a local police station as part of a routine surveillance procedure of individuals labeled as ‘history sheeters’. The appellant argued that his children had no criminal involvements and their inclusion was baseless and illegal.

Protection of Minors and Family Members: The Court emphasized the need for police to adhere strictly to Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which prohibits disclosing the identity of minors in conflict with the law. It was noted that the police had failed to respect the privacy and dignity of the appellant’s children, treating them unjustly as extensions of their father’s alleged criminal profile.

Revised Surveillance Protocols: The amended Standing Order issued by the Delhi Police now specifies that only those who might harbor an offender or have criminal associations should be listed in ‘History Sheets’. Justice Surya Kant remarked, “the mere familial relation to a suspect does not justify their inclusion.”

Nationwide Implications: The judgment further mandates a nationwide review of similar police practices. All states and Union Territories have been directed to consider the implications of their current practices on the dignity and privacy of individuals, particularly those from vulnerable communities.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the High Court’s judgment. It ordered the immediate removal of the appellant’s children’s names from the History Sheet and the implementation of revised protocols that strictly limit the inclusion of individuals to those with active roles in harboring or aiding criminals.

Directions for Future Enforcement: A senior officer is to audit and review all such entries regularly to prevent misuse. The Court’s directive also hints at broader reforms intended to protect against bias in police practices across India.

Date of Decision: May 7, 2024.

Amanatullah Khan vs The Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors.

Latest Legal News