High time UP revised its ‘19th century’ history sheet rules: Allahabad High Court

It noted that modern technology, including CCTV cameras, could be more effective than “19th century methods” of picketing and following history sheeters. The court thus suggested revising, updating and amending the provisions relating to history sheets in the UP Police Regulations.

The court found that the nature of crime had changed significantly, observing that while society was no longer troubled by offences such as cattle poisoning, modern-day expert criminals could drain bank accounts worth millions “at the click of a mouse”. It said these changing forms of crime required the government’s attention.

Justices J J Munir and Tarun Saxena were hearing a plea filed by a member of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association.

‘Framed in cases’

The court was hearing a plea filed by a member of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association, challenging the opening of a history sheet against him. The petitioner stated that he was framed in different criminal cases with the intention of pressurising him into withdrawing from the prosecution of a case relating to his brother’s murder. The petitioner argued that he was acquitted of all charges in these cases.

On the other hand, the counsel for the state defended the history sheet stating that his surveillance was necessary on the basis of six criminal cases.

After examining the cases lodged against the petitioner, the court observed that they do not depict him as a man who needs to be put on surveillance. “The petitioner otherwise is a respectable man, who is a member of the Bar of this Court and professionally active. He is also prominent as an office-bearer of the Bar. In this perspective, it really defies logic why he should be subjected to surveillance as a historysheeter,” it said.

No application of mind: HC

The high court further noted that a nonchalant approach with a rubber-stamped approval by the superintendent of police to open a B-Class history sheet against a person, that would subject him to lifelong surveillance, is not in tune with the constitutional balance of fundamental right to liberty.

The court remarked that the history sheet showed utter lack of application of mind on the part of the senior superintendent of police, Prayagraj, and that the nature of the petitioner’s criminal profile did not portray him to be the kind of professional or expert criminal for whom a Class-B history sheet can be opened.

“We must also say that a reading of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, City, Commissionerate Prayagraj is as mechanical as the rubber stamped approval by the Senior Superintendent of Police to the history-sheet,” the court said.

The bench, therefore, quashed the history sheet opened against the petitioner.