Allahabad High Court limits unfettered power of UP Police to open history sheets of citizens

In a judgment, the Allahabad High Court has limited the unfettered power of Uttar Pradesh police to open the history sheets of a citizen. The court directed that objections must be invited from the person concerned first and only after giving due consideration to them, should a reasoned order be passed in this connection.

A history sheet is a record of a person registered with the police for a history of criminal activity or for being a threat to society. As per UP Police Regulations, the criminal investigation department maintains these criminal and personal files.

Allowing a writ petition filed by Firoj Malik and others, a bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma observed, “The police regulations governing the opening of history sheets were introduced during colonial rule for the “subject Indians”, a time when the state was not democratic, hence, no requirements of observance of principles of natural justice were incorporated”.

Against this backdrop, 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 history sheets against him/her.

Furthermore, the court has also directed the official authorities to mandatorily consider the objections so submitted and pass a reasoned order.

 “While directing the opening of the history sheet of Class -A and Class -B, the higher police authority shall record his reasons for directing the opening of the history sheet of any class after considering the objection of the citizen filed against the report of the police station,” the court observed in its 33-page judgment.

The division bench passed this order as it criticized the existing process where a senior police officer can decide 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 is opened, are never allowed to put their version 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 dictate, threat, and coercion throughout his life”, the court added.

The bench also emphasized that such surveillance severely affects a person’s “right to liberty” and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

“Subjecting a citizen of a sovereign democratic State to surveillance cannot be said to be articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India. Such a person is condemned unheard,” the court stated.

The bench also took note of the misuse of the system, emphasizing that “rampant false implications, because of personal and political rivalry,” are pretty common.

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, District Gautam Budh Nagar,) based on their implication in common cases.

It was their case that there were only two cases registered against the petitioners, one under Section 386 IPC and the second under Section 2/3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters Act.

Against the backdrop, the court in its judgment dated January  21 analysed the provisions of the UP Regulation Act (which inter alia provides for Class-A and Class-B History sheets). It raised serious concerns about the colonial-era provisions in chapter XX of the Police Regulations titled “Registration and surveillance of bad characters”.