Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

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