Surveillance Register Entries Can't Be Based On Police Likes Or Dislikes: Rajasthan High Court Condemns Arbitrary Opening Of History Sheets

While setting aside the order of a Superintendent of Police opening history sheet against the petitioner, Rajasthan High Court held that the police does not have a license to enter the names of whosoever they like or dislike in the surveillance register.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the criteria for opening history sheet was subjective satisfaction of authority, and it had to be arrived based on reasonable belief or knowledge that the concerned person was habitually addicted to aid or abet the commission of crime, whether convicted or not.

It opined that reasonable belief of the police has to be based on strong and reasonable grounds, and mere belief was not sufficient.

“While arriving at the subjective satisfaction, the activities of such persons which are informative and useful, based on the facts ascertained by the police from the date of last entry shall be made month-wise for close watch of characters and quarterly for non-close watch of characters. The discretion of the authorities has to be exercised, according to the rules of reason and justice and not according to private opinion, according to law and not humour. It is to be not arbitrarily vague, fanciful, but legal and regular and it must be exercised within the limit to which an honest man competent to discharge of his office or to confine himself.”

The Court was hearing a petition challenging the order of the Superintendent of Police of opening history sheet against the petitioner, against whom 10 criminal cases were registered, but he was convicted in only one.

It was the case of the petitioner that as per the definition of “habitual offender” under the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953, it meant a person who was convicted in more than 3 criminal cases on 3 different occasion, after attaining the age of 18 years. Since the petitioner was not fulfilling that criteria, history sheet could not have been opened against him.

After hearing the contentions, the Court perused the relevant statues and regulation, and held that as per Clause 2 of Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, a history sheet could be opened against the person who was reasonable believed to be habitually addicted to commit crime or be an aider or abettor.

While accepting the argument of definition of 'habitual offender', the Court highlighted that the petitioner was convicted in one case, while in other cases, either the final negative report was submitted, or he was acquitted, or the FIR was quashed.

It was observed that in the present case, the history sheet was opened simply basis the registration of certain criminal cases against the petitioner. In this background, it was held that the petitioner did not fall in the definition of habitual offender.

“The Rajasthan Police Rules do not empower the police to act in a manner that infringes upon citizen's fundamental freedom…Ordinarily the names of persons with previous criminal record alone are entered in the surveillance register. They must be proclaimed offenders, previous convicts, or persons who have already been placed on security for good behaviour. In addition, names of persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not, can be categorized and entered in the surveillance register under the Police Rules.”

The Court held that the discretion of the authorities had to be exercised based on rules of reason, with a well-reasoned and speaking decision, failing which it would violate Articles 14 and 21.

In this light, the Court held that in the present case, the history sheet was not opened in accordance with the relevant provisions, and thus violated petitioner's right under Article 21.

Accordingly, the order was held to be legally unsustainable and was set aside, with a direction to remove the name of the petitioner for the history sheet/surveillance register.

Title: Kaptan Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 412

Click Here To Read/Download Order