-
by Admin
19 December 2025 4:21 PM
“Mere suspicion or a solitary case eight years ago cannot justify police surveillance—unbridled power under Police Regulations is constitutionally impermissible.” — In a strongly-worded judgment on 28 August 2025, the Allahabad High Court struck down the police action of opening and maintaining a History Sheet No.18-A category against a man accused in a solitary cow slaughter case registered eight years ago, calling the move a “clear abuse of surveillance powers” and a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Division Bench of Justice Santosh Rai and Justice Siddharth, in Mohammad Wajir v. State of U.P. & Others, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14839 of 2025, declared that police cannot open history sheets on mere suspicion or old, isolated cases, especially without any continuing criminal activity or credible material to show the individual is a habitual offender.
“History Sheets Cannot Be Opened at Whim—Police Must Show Reasonable Belief Based on Cogent Material”
The petitioner, Mohammad Wajir, challenged the Superintendent of Police, Siddharthnagar’s order dated 23 June 2025, which had rejected his representation seeking closure of a surveillance-based history sheet under U.P. Police Regulation No.18-A.
Wajir had earlier approached the High Court in 2024. A coordinate Bench on 17 March 2025 directed the Superintendent of Police to consider his representation in accordance with law. Acting on this direction, the SP passed a cryptic rejection order, relying solely on the existence of one case from 2016, registered under Sections 3/5/7 of the Cow Slaughter Act.
The Court noted: “It is admitted fact that only one case, Case Crime No.282 of 2016… has been registered against the petitioner and no any other case is pending or registered… It cannot be said that the petitioner is habitual offender of cattle theft.”
“Regulations 228 and 240 of U.P. Police Regulations Do Not Sanction Arbitrary Surveillance”
The Court critically examined Regulations 228, 231, and 240 of the U.P. Police Regulations, which govern the conditions for maintaining history sheets. It ruled that:
Regulation 228 applies to habitual criminals like dacoits, burglars, and cattle thieves.
Regulation 240 permits opening of a history sheet on suspicion, but requires substantiated material, not conjecture.
Justice Rai, writing for the Bench, observed:
“There exists no evidence to support the act of opening of the history sheet No.18-A… and therefore, it deserves to be quashed.”
The Court noted that the SP failed to justify how one dated FIR from 2016—without any conviction or subsequent offences—could lead to such intrusive police action in 2024. The bench added:
“We are of the considered view that Regulation 228 and 240 does not give unbridled, uncanalised power to the police… which has the consequence of squeezing out the fundamental freedom of the citizen.”
“State Cannot Brand Individuals as Suspects for Life—Right to Reputation and Privacy Protected by Article 21”
Citing precedents including Govind v. State of M.P. and Malak Singh v. State of Punjab & Haryana, the Court held that police surveillance must not infringe on the personal liberty of a citizen, especially when there's no conviction, no pattern of crime, and no present threat to public order.
It remarked that: “Surveillance powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily against individuals merely because the police ‘feel’ like it. There must be compelling, consistent material to support the conclusion that the individual poses a threat to law and order.”
The Court found that the representation was rejected mechanically, and the SP failed to show how Wajir fit the definition of a history-sheeter under Regulation 228. Even the original FIR named multiple accused, but only Wajir was subjected to surveillance, showing clear discriminatory treatment.
Court Directs Closure of History Sheet—Bars Further Surveillance
Quashing the SP's order dated 23 June 2025, the Court allowed the petition and ordered: “Respondents are directed to close the present history sheet No.18-A of the petitioner and not to keep surveillance on the petitioner, in pursuance of the said history-sheet.”
This judgment is a significant affirmation of constitutional safeguards in the context of surveillance powers, particularly under outdated colonial-era regulations, which are still being used arbitrarily in modern times.
History-Sheet System Must Not Override Civil Liberties
This ruling sets a vital precedent in curbing police excesses under the history-sheet mechanism, especially when used against individuals with no proven criminal tendencies or repeated offences. The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that the right to dignity, reputation, and privacy cannot be sacrificed at the altar of preventive policing based on stale or single-incident accusations.
Date of Decision: 28 August 2025
