B-Class History Sheet Can’t Be Opened Without Material Showing Professional Or Expert Criminality: Allahabad High Court
The Court said surveillance under a B-Class history sheet may continue until death and therefore requires sensitive classification based on material, not a mechanical police endorsement.
Justice J.J. Munir, Justice Tarun Saxena, Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has held that a B-Class history sheet under the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations cannot be opened through a rubber-stamped approval unless the police record material shows that the person is a professional or expert criminal requiring surveillance.
The Court was hearing a criminal writ petition challenging the Senior Superintendent of Police’s approval for opening a B-Class history sheet against the petitioner and the consequential history sheet maintained at Police Station Meja, Prayagraj.
A Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena observed: “It is not that even in cases of professional and expert criminals, their fundamental rights are to over-weigh against the countervailing and overbearing larger public interest. But, cases where this kind of curtailment is indeed necessary, have to be sensitively classified and identified. A cavalier approach cannot be adopted with a rubber stamped approval by the Superintendent of Police to open a B-Class history sheet, that would cast a shadow of surveillance over a man for the remainder of his life.”
The Bench further held: “We do not wish to say that it is the obligation of the Senior Superintendent of Police to pass a detailed order authorizing the opening of a history sheet, but at the same time he has to record in a few words how he finds the man to be a professional or an expert criminal, on the basis of material available on record, so as to imperil his liberty until the man's death.”
Advocate Harbansh Prasad Pandey appeared for the petitioner. Additional Government Advocate Deepak Mishra appeared for the State.
Background
The petitioner challenged the order approving the opening of a B-Class history sheet against him and sought quashing of both the approval order and the history sheet.
The history sheet was opened after a report moved from the Station House Officer to the Circle Officer, then to the Superintendent of Police, and finally to the Senior Superintendent of Police, who approved it. The petitioner said he became aware of the history sheet only when a police constable informed him later.
The petitioner relied on entries in the history sheet to submit that from 2020 to 2024 he was repeatedly recorded as being inactive, living at home or running a school or college. He also referred to the criminal cases cited against him, stating that one had ended in a final report, some involved bail orders, one had proceedings stayed after compromise, and in the murder case he had been exculpated by the police.
The State opposed the plea, asserting that the petitioner was a “hardcore and nefarious criminal”, that several criminal cases were registered against him, and that the history sheet had been opened to prevent his alleged illegal activities and keep watch over him.
Court’s Observations
The Court examined Regulation 228 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations and noted that Class-B history sheets are meant for confirmed and professional criminals committing offences other than dacoity, burglary, cattle theft, or theft from railway goods wagons.
The Court observed, “The hallmark, therefore, of a subject against whom a history sheet of Class-B can be opened, is a professional criminal, who is beyond redemption.”
It clarified that involvement in multiple cases does not itself bring a person within the category contemplated by Regulation 228. The Court held, “The fact that a man is aggressive by temperament and gets involved in different kinds of offences, assuming that these are true, would not qualify him as a professional or expert criminal, who is contemplated as the subject of a B-Class history sheet under Regulation 228 of the UP Police Regulations.”
On examining the petitioner’s case history, the Court found that the offences were diverse and did not show the pattern of professional or expert criminality required for a B-Class history sheet.
The Court held, “Looking to the entire profile of cases, none of the offences are of a character which may place the petitioner in the category of a professional or expert criminal, like a pick-pocket, railway passenger thief, bicycle thief, cattle poisoner, professional cheat, coiner, forger, a hired ruffian or goonda etc.”
It further observed, “He is, by no means, an expert or professional criminal, though cases might have been registered against him time over again.”
The Court also noted that the last crime recorded in the history sheet was of 2015, while the proposal to open the history sheet was made in 2020, and no crime was recorded against him during that intervening period.
The Court considered Regulation 240 and observed that history sheets may be opened on suspicion, conviction or acquittal, but not without orders of the Superintendent of Police. This requirement, the Court said, reflected awareness that opening a history sheet is invasive of liberty and privacy.
The Court observed, “This embargo against the opening of history sheets, without the orders of the Superintendent of Police, shows that the law-makers were aware even in the pre-constitutional days, when the UP Police Regulations were framed, that the opening of a history sheet, howsoever described as a measure for the Police to go about their duty, is deeply invasive of the individual's liberty and privacy.”
The Court added that the power required “understanding, care and caution”, but found that such care was absent in the present case.
Referring to Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, the Court observed that the right to liberty now includes freedoms enabling an individual to live a human life with its facets, while Article 19 protects expression and free movement.
The Court noted the forms of surveillance contemplated under the Police Regulations and held, “A look at these methods of surveillance would certainly show that while a man may not be actually under restraint, his liberty and privacy, including his movements, would be under constant gaze.”
It further observed, “A supervision, like this, would certainly be severe curtailment of an individual's right to liberty guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.”
The Court relied on Gobind v. State of M.P. (1975), where the Supreme Court had read down surveillance provisions and held that mere convictions without grave danger to society cannot justify surveillance.
The Court observed that Gobind remained relevant and stated, “It is to be limited for such men, who pose dangerous security risks to the society at large, when they virtually lead a professional life of crime.”
It further noted that after K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India (2017), the right to privacy is now a well-established facet of Article 21.
The Court found that the Senior Superintendent of Police had not applied his mind to whether the petitioner was an expert professional criminal requiring surveillance.
The Court observed, “If we look at the history sheet, except for the cases registered, which are all disjunct and different, there is no material, which the Senior Superintendent of Police has taken into consideration before granting approval to the opening of the impugned history sheet by his order dated 27.02.2020.”
It added, “The order too is a rubber stamped approval, which does little justice to the solemnness of the duty, which is cast upon the Senior Superintendent of Police while granting approval to the opening of a history sheet under Regulation 240 of the UP Police Regulations.”
The Court concluded that there was no justification to classify the petitioner as a professional and expert criminal so desperate as to require lifelong surveillance as a B-Class history-sheeter.
Conclusion
The writ petition was allowed. The High Court quashed the approval order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj, and the consequential B-Class history sheet opened against the petitioner.
The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be communicated to the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Yamuna Nagar, Commissionerate Prayagraj, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Circle Meja, Commissionerate Prayagraj, and the Station House Officer, Police Station Meja, District Prayagraj, through the Registrar (Compliance).
Cause Title: Satendra @ Dactar v. State of U.P. and others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:172286-DB)