Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

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