Blog

Case Name: Amanatullah Khan v. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors 

Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No.5719/2023 

Dated: May 07, 2024 

Quorum: Justice Surya Kant and Justice K V Viswanathan 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

The appellant filed a writ suit in the Delhi High Court pursuant to Article 226 of the Indian Constitution read in conjunction with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the annulment of the “History Sheet” that had been opened against him and the proposal to designate him as “Bad Character” by placing his name in the Surveillance “Register-X, Part II, Bundle A” at the Delhi Police Station.  

These proceedings have been initiated as a result of the Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the appellant’s writ petition, as evidenced by the contested judgement of 19.01.2023.  

Following notification, the Delhi Police made an appearance through seasoned senior attorney Mr. Sanjay Jain. He was informed of the disturbing details in the History Sheet regarding the appellant’s and his wife’s school-age children, for whom there didn’t seem to be any negative information that should have been included in the History Sheet.  

Subsequently, it was informed that the rule 23.8 and rule 23.9 of the Punjab Police Rules 1934 (also known as the “1934 Rules”), which were in effect in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, stipulated the format for the history sheeters. Despite the fact that Mr. Jain, the learned senior counsel for the respondents, fairly consented to revisit the antiquated regulations, it is important to protect the privacy, dignity, and self-respect of innocent individuals who just so happen to be a suspect’s family members.  

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS: 

• Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The name, address, school, or any other information that could identify a child in trouble with the law, a child in need of care and protection, a child victim or witness to a crime, involved in such matter, under any other law currently in effect, may not be disclosed in any newspaper, magazine, or other form of communication regarding any inquiry, investigation, or judicial procedure. Nor may the picture of any such child be published. As long as the Board or Committee conducting the inquiry determines that such disclosure is in the child’s best interest, it may approve it for reasons that must be documented in writing. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS: 

Amanatullah Khan filed a writ petition in accordance with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. He asked for the “History Sheet” that had been opened against him to be quashed and for the idea to designate him as a “Bad Character” to be rejected. 

His name was entered into the Surveillance “Register-X, Part II, Bundle A” at Jamia Nagar Police Station in the South-East of Delhi District. The petitioner claimed that there were significant irregularities and improper behaviour on the part of the police officers, along with a dishonest and perverse behaviour. 

Further, the appellants argued that the amended Standing Order stipulated that, in the “relations and connections” column, the names of the criminal’s accomplices, abettors, and receivers, as well as their ability to pay for a history sheeter or bad character shelter in the event that the offender is wanted by the police or is fleeing the scene, must be included.  

No information on any minor relatives—son, daughter, or siblings—should be included anywhere in the History Sheet unless there is proof that the minor has provided the offender with refuge in the past, as stated in the modified Standing Order. 

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

The revised Standing Order makes it even clearer that the “History Sheet” is an internal police record and not a report that is available to the general public. It has advised police officers to exercise caution in ensuring that the identities of just those minor relatives be recorded in the History Sheet where there is proof that the minor previously provided the offender with sanctuary when he was evading the authorities. 

The court observed that the modified Standing Order also makes recommendations for the protection of personal information such as phone numbers, Aadhar cards, EPIC numbers, email addresses, social media accounts, and so on. 

The court’s primary motive was to instruct law enforcement officials to implement the modified Standing Order of March 21, 2024, starting immediately in the appellant’s case as well. Additionally, the court ordered the Delhi Commissioner of Police to appoint a senior police officer, at least the rank of Joint Commissioner of Police, to audit and review the information contained in the History Sheets on a regular basis.  

The court also observed that the person will also be responsible for maintaining confidentiality and granting permission to remove the names of any adults, juveniles, or minors who are found not guilty during an investigation and whose records should be removed from the category of “relations and connections” in those sheets.  

Apart from the National Capital Territory of Delhi, the court was aware that no States or Union Territories were in front of them. They haven’t received any attention. Therefore, it is not possible to issue them with a positive mandamus. Additionally, the court is ignorant of the Standing Orders or current Rules/Policies that are in effect in various States and Union Territories.  

Thus, in order to ensure that the court’s observations are implemented in full, the court decided it was appropriate at that point to order all States and Union Territories to review their policy regimes and determine whether any appropriate modifications based on the “Delhi Model” were necessary. 

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora. 

Click to view judgment.