In a noteworthy judgment restricting the arbitrary use of police power, the Telangana High Court has deemed that rowdy sheets cannot be maintained solely on suspicion or past history without adhering to stringent legal procedures and regular reviews.
The ruling comes following the quashing of a rowdy sheet opened against a 29-year-old resident of Talabkatta, Hyderabad, in 2008. The court found the continued maintenance of the sheet without fresh evidence or mandatory six-monthly assessments to be unjustified and in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to life and personal liberty as outlined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The rowdy sheet, maintained at Mirchowk police station, was opened due to the man’s alleged involvement in seven cases. However, the petitioner contended that all these cases ended in acquittals or settlements and that he has held no criminal record since 2019. Despite this, the police persisted in maintaining the rowdy sheet without conducting the necessary reviews, the petitioner argued.
The petitioner further alleged that he faced mental and physical harassment, including repeated summons to the police station without due process, and sought the quashing of the rowdy sheet along with compensation.
Justice N Tukaramji, presiding over the case, stated that the police’s power to open and maintain rowdy or suspect sheets is not absolute and must comply strictly with the Police Standing Orders. These orders mandate a review at least once every six months to determine if such surveillance remains necessary.
The judge observed that continuing a rowdy sheet without periodic review or fresh evidence of criminal activity is unconstitutional, especially in cases where the individual involved has been offense-free since 2019, as in this instance.
In light of these findings, the court ordered the police to immediately expunge the petitioner’s name from all records and ensure that no adverse entries remain active. The decision underscores the importance of upholding individual rights and due process in matters concerning law enforcement.
