SC urges states & UTs to ensure history sheets don’t name innocents, directs periodic audits

SC urges states & UTs to ensure history sheets don’t name innocents, directs periodic audits

New Delhi: Taking note of allegations that police diaries are selectively maintained against people belonging to vimukta jatis solely on the basis of their caste, the Supreme Court Tuesday urged states and Union territories to consider ensuring that history sheets don’t have “mechanical entries”.

Vimukta jatis, or denotified tribes, were the tribal communities that were listed under the colonial Criminal Tribes Act, 1871, as ‘criminal tribes’. The law was repealed in 1952, and the tribes were ‘denotified’.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan wanted to check the inclusion of innocent individuals in history sheets simply because they happen to hail from socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, along with those belonging to backward communities, scheduled castes (SCs), and scheduled tribes (STs).

“While we are not sure about the degree of their authenticity, but there are some studies available in the public domain that reveal a pattern of an unfair, prejudicial and atrocious mindset,” the court observed.

“We must bear in mind that these preconceived notions often render them ‘invisible victims’ due to prevailing stereotypes associated with their communities, which may often impede their right to live a life with self-respect,” it added.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Amanatullah Khan, challenging the ‘history sheet’ opened by the Delhi Police against him and the tag of a ‘bad character’ levelled by the force against him. The Delhi High Court had dismissed his petition in January this year, after which he approached the Supreme Court.

The court has only modified the Delhi HC order to ensure that details of his minor school-going children and his wife, against whom there was no adverse material, wouldn’t be included in the history sheet.

The court then said that having partially addressed Khan’s grievance, it wanted to use its suo motu powers to propose expansion of scope of these proceedings, so that the police authorities in other states and UTs may also consider the desirability of ensuring that the history sheet has “no mechanical entries”.

It took note of allegations that police diaries are selectively maintained for individuals belonging to vimukta jatis, based solely on caste bias — “a somewhat similar manner as happened in colonial times”. It, therefore, asserted that all state governments are “expected to take necessary preventive measures to safeguard such communities from being subjected to inexcusable targeting or prejudicial treatment.”

Delhi’s ‘archaic’ rules

While hearing Khan’s plea, Delhi Police’s lawyer Sanjay Jain was told that Khan’s history sheet also had details of his school-going minor children of the appellant and his wife.

The format of the history sheets was prescribed in accordance with the rules under the Punjab Police Rules 1934, as applicable to the NCT of Delhi. However, Jain agreed that the “archaic rules” need to be revisited to ensure that the dignity, self respect and privacy of innocent people, who happen to be the family members of a suspect, is not compromised at any cost.

Jain told the Supreme Court Tuesday that the standing order pertaining to ‘Surveillance of History Sheeters and Bad Characters’ has been amended, to now include a clause that the space for “relations and connections” in the history sheet format should reflect identities of those persons who afford him/her shelter when the offender is running/wanted by the police. It says that “no details of any minor relatives i.e. son, daughter, siblings should be recorded anywhere in the history sheet unless there is evidence that the minor under question can, or has earlier, afforded shelter to the offender, ‘while he was on run from police’.”

The amended standing order further says that while preparing the history sheet, the police may also keep in mind Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which prohibits disclosure of identity of a child in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection of a child victim or witness of a crime through a report.

It adds that even though the history sheet is an internal police document and not a publicly accessible report, “care must be taken that identities of only those minor relatives are entered into the history sheet against whom evidence exists that minor in question has earlier had, afforded shelter to the offender, while he was on run from police”.”

The court felt that the “extra care and precaution, to be now observed by a police officer while ensuring that the identity of a minor child is not disclosed as per the law too, is a necessary step to redress the appellant’s grievances”. It then directed the amended Standing Order be given effect to in Khan’s case as well.

‘Right to live with dignity’

The court also directed the commissioner of police, Delhi, to designate a senior police officer, in the rank of joint commissioner of police or above, to periodically audit or review the contents of the history sheets. The court also directed leeway to delete the names of such persons or children who are, in the course of investigation, found to be innocent and are entitled to be expunged from the category of “relations and connections” in a history sheet.

As for other states and Union territories, the court observed that a periodic audit mechanism overseen by a senior police officer, as directed for the NCT of Delhi, will serve as a critical tool to review and scrutinise the entries made. This, it said, would help them ascertain that the entries are devoid of any biases or discriminatory practices.

“Through the effective implementation of audits, we can secure the elimination of such deprecated practices and kindle the legitimate hope that the right to live with human dignity, as guaranteed under Article 21, is well protected,” it observed.

The bench noted that the other states and Union territories were not parties to this case before it, so it cannot issue a direction to them. It also acknowledged that it wasn’t aware of the existing rules or policies or standing orders in vogue in different states and UTs.

“We, therefore, deem it appropriate, at this stage, to direct all the States/Union Territories to revisit their policy-regime and consider whether suitable amendments on the pattern of the ‘Delhi Model’ are required to be made so that our observations…can be given effect in true letter and spirit,” it then observed.

The court, therefore, directed the registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the chief secretary and director general of police of all states and Union territories to enable them to consider and comply with its observations as soon as possible, but not later than six months.

(Edited by Zinnia Ray Chaudhuri)