‘Curb on right to liberty’: Allahabad High Court quashes history sheet against man

Class-B history sheet

There are two categories of history-sheeters: Class-A history-sheeters comprise less hardened criminals, whereas Class-B history-sheeters are those who are ‘professional’ criminals.

According to the petitioner, although eight criminal cases had been registered against him over the years, several had ended in a final report of compromise, grant of bail or exoneration and none placed him in the category of a professional criminal contemplated under the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations.

Justices J J Munir and Tarun Saxena stressed that in the post-Constitution era, the rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 have assumed great significance.

The petitioner argued that the offences which have been registered against him are not within Regulation 228 (classification and opening of history sheets) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations in order to entitle them to open a history sheet against him.

Examining Regulations 228, 229 and 232, the bench noted that a Class-B history sheet is intended for “confirmed and professional criminals” such as professional cheats, pickpockets, forgers, smugglers, hired ruffians and goondas, whose activities warrant continued surveillance. The court remarked that the petitioner appeared to be a man who lands himself in trouble, but there was nothing in the counter affidavit to show professionalism in crime which would attract the opening of a Class-B history sheet.

It found that the last crime recorded in the history sheet dates back to 2015. “The history sheet has been opened in the year 2020 and the proposal was made in the year 2020. During those five years, the history sheet does not record any crime against the petitioner,” it noted.

‘Rubber-stamped approval’

The bench stressed that in the post-Constitution era, the rights to privacy, liberty, free movement and expression guaranteed under Articles 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) have assumed great significance.

It added that such supervision would amount to severe curtailment of an individual’s right to liberty and noted that cases where this kind of curtailment is necessary need to be identified sensitively.

“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. 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,” the court said, and quashed the history sheet opened against the petitioner.