‘Such power not absolute’: Telangana HC sets aside 17-year-old ‘rowdy sheet’ against man with no recent crimes

The petitioner’s counsel, V Raghunath, argued that the ‘rowdy sheet’ had been extended mechanically without any periodic review as mandated under the relevant police regulations. He further alleged that the petitioner was being mentally and physically harassed by being summoned to the police station without due process of law.

The Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the petitioner was involved in about seven criminal cases, the last of which was registered in 2019, and conceded that all those cases have since been closed either by acquittal or compromise. He contended that the ‘rowdy sheet’ has been continued in view of the petitioner’s past involvement in criminal cases and “the apprehension of his possible re-involvement in criminal activities.”

In an earlier judgment dated December 11, 2025, Justice Tukaramji had set aside a ‘rowdy sheet’ against an advocate on similar grounds and issued a set of comprehensive directions to the Director General of Police (DGP) to “ensure that the preventive powers of the police are exercised judiciously, transparently, and constitutionally.” He had directed the DGP to establish a state-level oversight mechanism to conduct annual audits of all suspect sheets maintained across districts.

‘Arbitrary and unconstitutional’

Recording the submissions, Justice Tukaramji observed that though the police are empowered to open a ‘rowdy sheet’ against a person habitual to committing offences affecting public order or tranquillity, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, particularly Standing Order 601-A, “such power is not absolute and must be exercised strictly in accordance with law.”

Noting that a ‘rowdy sheet’ cannot be continued indefinitely, the court underlined that the Standing Order expressly mandates that every ‘rowdy sheet’ be reviewed periodically every six months by the competent authority to determine whether its continuation is warranted. “Continuation without such review or without fresh material indicating potential involvement in offences renders the action arbitrary and unconstitutional,” the Judge remarked.

The court observed that “the continuance of the rowdy sheet without any fresh material or valid justification amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power, violating the petitioner’s right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The court subsequently quashed the ‘rowdy sheet’ maintained against the petitioner and directed the respondent police authorities to take immediate steps to remove the petitioner’s name from the relevant records and ensure that no adverse entry pertaining to the said ‘rowdy sheet’ remains in force.