Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana 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