
LUCKNOW: In a significant verdict that will end the practice of opening a history sheet against an accused without giving him a hearing, the Allahabad High Court has put a leash on the unconstrained power of UP police.
The court has issued directives to police authorities that first the objections from the person concerned must be invited and only after giving due consideration to them, a reasoned order be passed in this connection.
Allowing a writ petition filed by Firoj Malik and others, a double bench, comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma, said that the police regulations governing the opening of history sheets were introduced during colonial rule for its subject Indians. At that time, the state was not democratic, hence, no requirement of observance of principles of natural justice were incorporated.
Keeping this in mind, the court has now made it mandatory for police authorities to provide the proposed history-sheeter an opportunity to submit objections to the police station’s report recommending the opening of a history sheet against them.
A history sheet is a record of a person's criminal past made by the police. As per UP police regulations, these criminal and personal files are maintained by the criminal investigation department.
Furthermore, the court has also directed the official authorities to consider the objections so submitted and pass a logical order.
“While issuing the directions for opening the history sheet of Class-A and Class-B, the higher police authority shall record his reasons for directing opening of history sheet of any class after considering the objection filed by the person concerned against the report of the police station,” the court observed in its 33-page judgment.
The division bench passed this order as it criticised the existing process where a senior police officer can make the decision to open a history sheet by merely approving the report of the police station.
However, it added, post the promulgation of the Constitution of India, adherence to natural justice, as enshrined under Article 14, has become ‘imperative’, especially when the “right to life, livelihood and liberty of an individual is involved.”
The court noted that at present, the individuals against whom the history sheet was opened were never afforded an opportunity to put their side of the story against the police report.
“Once such a history sheet is opened, particularly of Class-B, the person remains under ‘surveillance for life’, making them vulnerable to police diktats, threat and coercion throughout his life,” added the court.
The bench also emphasised that such surveillance was deemed to be in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution pertaining to person’s ‘right to liberty’.
The bench also took note of the misuse of the system, emphasising that “rampant false implications, because of personal and political rivalry,” were pretty common in such cases.
The court was dealing with a writ plea moved by four individuals (all related to each other) challenging the opening of a history sheet against all of them vide an order passed in 2021 by the deputy commissioner of police, Greater Noida, on the basis of their implication in common cases.
Only two cases were registered against the petitioners: one under section 386 IPC and the second under section 2/3(1) of the UP Gangsters Act.
Against the backdrop, the court in its judgment dated January 21 raised serious concerns about the colonial-era provisions in chapter XX of the police regulations titled ‘Registration and surveillance of bad characters’.