Branding A Person As History Sheeter Taints His Image In Society, It Must Be Prepared With Caution: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir And Ladakh High Court, Jammu Bench, held that preparation of a history sheet should not be done in a mechanical manner, but with caution and responsibility, per Rule 702 of the Police Rules, 1960 (Rules).
The Court allowed the Petition challenging the Verification of Character and Antecedents Certificate issued by Respondent no 4, wherein the Petitioner was marked as a history sheeter. The Court noted that branding someone as a history-sheeter taints their image in society and adversly impacts their personal growth and relationships.
Justice M.A. Chowdhary observed, “A perusal of the aforementioned rule shows that the preparation of a history sheet is not expected to be a mechanical exercise... There has to be a deliberated decision taken, giving reasons which should reflect application of mind to such materials, after all being leveled a history sheeter as grave and adverse consequence for a person and, therefore, such a power should be exercised with caution and responsibility”.
“Branding a person as a history sheeter has a tainted image in the society as compared to others. Needless to say that his relationship with others and the prospects of personal development may not remain the same”, the Court noted.
Senior Advocate C.M. Koul appeared for the Petitioners and General Advocate Mohd. Irfan Inqlabi appeared for the Respondents.
The Petitioner approached the Court by way of a Writ Petition challenging the Verification of Character and Antecedents Certificate issued by Respondent no 4 (Sub-divisional Police Officer), wherein the Petitioner was described as a history-sheeter besides being under surveillance.
As per Rule 702 of the Rules, the Court noted that creating a history sheet should not be a mechanical task. It is necessary to provide a detailed description of the crime to which the person is addicted. Furthermore, the Court observed that the decision-making process should not be left solely to one police officer, as senior officers should also be involved. The Court noted that all relevant materials must be considered, and no material should be excluded from the deliberation. The decision must be taken carefully, with reasons provided that reflect the application of mind to the materials.
The Court emphasized that the consequences of being labeled a history-sheeter are severe and adverse, and therefore, such power should be used with caution and responsibility. The Court noted that the decision to open a history sheet is subjective and based on the belief that the individual is addicted to or involved in criminal activity. The authorities' discretion must be exercised within the limits of reason and justice, according to the law, and not arbitrarily. The Court further emphasized that branding someone as history sheeted can have negative social consequences, and opening or extending history sheets should be done considering the individual's constitutional rights and the state's interests. The Court asserted the importance of adhering to Police Rules and the object sought to be achieved.
“Therefore, a fair and reasonable decision should be taken, taking into consideration the constitutional rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the interests of the State. It should be noted that at the time of opening a history sheet, the individual is not informed of a decision taken by the authorities behind his back and that the information collected is discreet. Needless to say that every person wants to live with dignity and he/she cannot be condemned arbitrarily. It is also to be borne in mind that estrangement of the members of the history sheeted person in social gathering etc., is not uncommon in order in our society. Therefore, opening or retention of history sheets, which interferes with the right of privacy of a person, should be done strictly, adhering to parameters inbuilt in the police rules, keeping in mind the object sought to be achieved”, the Court noted.
Furthermore, the Court referred to the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Dhanji Ram Sharma v Superintendent of Police [AIR 1966 (SC) 1766] and rejected the Respondent’s contentions regarding five cases lodged against the Petitioner. The Court noted that four out of five registered cases were dismissed after trial.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and directed for the removal of the history sheet along with its periodical extensions from the record of the concerned police station.
Cause Title: Bashir-Ud-Din v UT of J&K (Th. Additional Principal Secretary to Govt. for the Deptt. of Home, Govt. of J&K, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar)
