Declaring Person History-Sheeter Must Be Based On Reasonable Belief Due To Objective Material: J&K&L High Court

The Court was hearing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the history sheet and removal of the petitioner's name from the surveillance register on the ground that such action was arbitrary and not in conformity with the provisions of the J&K Police Rules, 1960.

The petitioner had been arrested in connection with FIR and his name was entered in Surveillance Register No. 10 under Rule 698 of the Rules, after which he was declared a history-sheeter without being afforded any opportunity of hearing.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar, while observing that “great care and caution is required to be exercised before branding a person as a history-sheeter and entering his name in the surveillance register,” held that “the entry of a person's name in the surveillance register must necessarily be preceded by due application of mind and formation of subjective satisfaction strictly in accordance with the provisions of the J&K Police Rules.”

Assailing his entry as story-sheeter without affording him any opportunity of being heard the petitioner had averred that he had been implicated in multiple FIRs primarily on account of political vendetta and had been falsely implicated in several baseless and manipulated cases, though he had never been convicted in any case. Challans had been presented in all the FIRs registered against him, and he had been enlarged on bail by competent courts.

The petitioner contended that no opportunity of hearing was granted prior to entering his name in the surveillance register, and that there existed no reasonable belief on the part of the police necessitating such entry.

The respondents alleged that FIR No.52/2023 was registered on a complaint by a private person alleging that he had been duped by the petitioner of an amount of Rs.2,80,000/-. The respondents claimed that the petitioner was a habitual offender who fraudulently duped gullible members of the public and was involved in multiple FIRs.

Court's Observations

The Court examined the relevant provisions of the J&K Police Rules, 1960. Rule 698 pertains to Surveillance Register No. 10, which contains names of persons falling within specified categories, including proclaimed offenders, released convicts, and persons bound down under Sections 109 and 110 CrPC.

The Court noted that Part II empowers the Superintendent of Police, in his discretion, to enter the names of persons convicted thrice or more for certain offences, persons reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether convicted or not, and persons bound down under Sections 109 and 110 CrPC.

The Court further noted that Rule 699 mandates that where the Superintendent of Police proposes to enter the name of a person in Register No. 10, he shall hear the objections of such person and, upon satisfying himself fully, pass an order directing such entry. The Court observed,

“... A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it manifest that the object underlying the opening of a history sheet is prevention of offences by persons allegedly addicted to criminal activities. The Rules prescribe not only the categories of persons in respect of whom such action may be taken, but also the procedure and safeguards to be followed while doing so.”

The Court referred to a Coordinate Bench judgment in Bashir ud Din v. UT of J&K (WP(Crl) No.37/2023, which held that preparation of a history sheet cannot be a mechanical exercise and that there must be a deliberate decision reflecting due application of mind, since branding a person as a history-sheeter carries grave and adverse consequences.

The Court quoted with approval that surveillance must be founded upon sufficient material and exercised strictly within the parameters of law, and that the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority must be founded upon reasonable belief based on objective material. The Court observed,

“... Arbitrary exercise of such power would seriously impinge upon the right to privacy and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Referring to Malak Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Haryana (1981) SCC 420 , the Court observed,

“... Though discreet surveillance over habitual offenders may be necessary for prevention of crime, the same cannot be permitted to transgress the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The police cannot indiscriminately enter names in the surveillance register and that surveillance must remain unobtrusive and strictly within the limits prescribed by law.”

The Court found that in the present case, the petitioner's name had been entered in the surveillance register and a history sheet opened without issuance of any notice or affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing as contemplated under the Rules. The Court held,

“... Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the settled position of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that the entry of the petitioner's name in the Surveillance Register appears to have been made without recording any cogent reasons or drawing the requisite subjective satisfaction. No material has been brought on record demonstrating formation of a reasonable belief that the petitioner is a habitual offender or a person habitually addicted to crime so as to justify continuation of his name in the Surveillance Register.”

The Court thus allowed the petition, quashed the history sheet opened in the name of the petitioner, and directed the removal of his name from the surveillance register.

Case Title: G.M. Sheikh v. UT of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read/download Judgment