Nod to open ‘history sheet’ against AAP’s Amanatullah Khan fair, not prejudiced: Delhi HC

“The opening of the History Sheet qua the petitioner (Khan) and subsequent according of approval by the respondent no.2 (DCP South East) was not based on conjecture or surmises but was accorded on application of mind and was not contrary to the strict provisions of the Rule. There was no mala fide exercise of discretion on the part of the respondent no.2 while according the approval on 30.03.2022,” the high court held, dismissing Khan’s plea.

While holding that Khan’s plea is without merit, the high court granted him the liberty to make a representation for deletion or cancellation of his name from the surveillance register as per law which “shall be decided” by the Delhi Police in “accordance with law without any delay”.

Amanatullah Khan has also sought legal action against senior police officers for allegedly acting in a “malafide and perverse manner” against him. An FIR was registered against Khan in the backdrop of the protests against a demolition drive by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation in Kanchan Kunj, Okhla on May 12, 2022. Khan claimed that he was peacefully protesting which is protected under Article 19 of the Constitution when he was attacked by Delhi Police personnel on site and was detained “unlawfully” thereafter.

Khan claimed that on May 13, 2022, he learnt from social media that Station House Officer Jamia Nagar on March 28, 2022 had submitted a dossier to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), New Friends Colony and Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), South East along with a proposal of opening a history sheet of the petitioner and to place his name as “Bad Character” (BC) in their records to keep a close surveillance on his activities. The proposal was accompanied by a list of 18 cases pending against Khan. He said the information was leaked to the media on the day his bail application was listed before the trial court.

Khan claimed that in 14 cases registered against him, he had either been discharged, acquitted or the FIR had been quashed and that these cases mostly related to offences such as intimidation, threatening, riots among others. It was argued that the said proposal, besides referring to Khan as “bad character”, also alleged that he had made a group consisting of persons from his village and neighbouring villages and was indulging in land grabbing and illegal constructions, besides creating terror in general.

Khan argued that thereafter approval was sought from ACP (New Friends Colony) and DCP (South East) for opening his criminal history which was subsequently granted on March 29-30, 2022. His crux of the argument was that both proposal and the subsequent approval were made without recording “definite reasons and application of mind”, which violates Rule 23 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.

The high court held that it was true that Khan had not been convicted previously and in most cases registered against him, he had been either discharged, acquitted, the offences were compounded and FIR was quashed. But after perusing the dossier and proposal made by SHO Jamia Nagar police station on March 28, 2022, which was approved by the senior police officials, the high court subsequently said that the same contained adequate and sufficient reasons with proper application of mind by the police officials. “There is no legal and factual force in arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner (Khan) that the petitioner (Khan) is not a previous convict,” the HC opined.

Khan had argued that the said proposal, which was based on the dossier for opening the history sheet, was required to be kept confidential as per Punjab Police Rules, however the same was leaked in a “pre-planned manner” on May 13, 2022, the day Khan’s bail plea was listed before the trial court. The high court, however, held that while it was true that the rules mandate confidentiality in recording of the reasons for subjecting a person to surveillance, it found that there was no evidence or material which could indicate that the dossier and the subsequent approval was leaked by the Delhi Police or through Delhi Police. “The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as referred hereinabove are without factual basis,” the high court said.