A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan, dealing with a matter involving the inclusion of the minor children of Aam Aadmi Party leader Amanatullah Khan in his history sheet, has expressed concern that the instrument is used to target specific communities mechanically and called for amendments to rectify this bias.
—
ON Tuesday, the Supreme Court, invoking its suo motu powers, directed all state and Union territory governments to revise their policy regime to ensure that no mechanical entries in history sheet are made of innocent individuals, simply because they happen to hail from socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, along with those belonging to Backward Communities, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan passed an Order to this effect.
The history sheet, including a photo of the history-sheeter, is a confidential record opened by the police. History-sheeters are subjected to surveillance by the police.
The surveillance may include secret picketing of the house or approaches to the houses of the suspects, domiciliary visits at night and periodical enquiries by officers. Since law and order is a subject matter of state governments, different states have different Rules for opening history sheets.
Facts
The Bench was dealing with a petition filed by the Aam Aadmi Party(AAP) leader Amanatullah Khan against the Delhi High Court’s refusal to quash the ‘history sheet’ opened against him by the Delhi police.
The history sheet, including a photo of the history-sheeter, is a confidential record opened by the police. History-sheeters are subjected to surveillance by the police.
During the hearing, the Bench expressed concerns regarding the history sheet to the extent it pertained to the school-going minor children of Khan and his wife, against whom there was no adverse material whatsoever for inclusion in the history sheet.
The police had submitted that they followed the prescribed format as per Rule 23.8 and Rule 23.9 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as were applicable in the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
Also read: POCSO and judicial scrutiny of victim’s evidence: Is the burden of absolute consistency too high?
Since the Bench was concerned with the disclosure of the identities of the minor children, the counsel for Delhi police agreed to revisit the ‘archaic’ Rules to ensure that the dignity, self-respect and privacy of innocent people who incidentally happen to be the family members of a suspect is not compromised at any cost.
During the subsequent hearing, senior advocate Sanjay Jain, for Delhi police, informed the Bench that the commissioner of police has now issued an amended Standing Order in which in the column “relations and connections” of the history-sheeter, only those persons shall be reflected who can afford the history-sheeter or bad character shelter when the offender is running or is wanted by the police and it shall also include names of his associates in crime, abettors and receivers.
The amended Standing Order emphatically says that no details of any minor relatives, i.e., son, daughter, or siblings, shall be recorded anywhere in the history sheet, unless there is evidence that such minor has, or earlier had, afforded shelter to the offender.
The amended Standing Order also makes it clear that Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 shall be meticulously followed, which prohibits disclosure of the identity of a child in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection or a child victim or a witness of a crime through a report, etc.
“Child in conflict with law” means a child who is alleged or found to have committed an offence and who has not completed eighteen years of age on the date of commission of such offence.
“Child in need of care and protection” means a child:
(i) who is found without any home or settled place of abode and without any ostensible means of subsistence; or
(ii) who is found working in contravention of labour laws for the time being in force or is found begging, or living on the street; or
(iii) who resides with a person (whether a guardian of the child or not) and such person—
Also read: The uncanny Throckmorton: An Indian resurgence of a 500-year-old trial
(a) has injured, exploited, abused or neglected the child or has violated any other law for the time being in force meant for the protection of child; or
(b) has threatened to kill, injure, exploit or abuse the child and there is a reasonable likelihood of the threat being carried out; or
(c) has killed, abused, neglected or exploited some other child or children and there is a reasonable likelihood of the child in question being killed, abused, exploited or neglected by that person; or
(iv) who is mentally ill or mentally or physically challenged or suffering from terminal or incurable disease, having no one to support or look after or having parents or guardians unfit to take care, if found so by the Board or the Committee; or
(v) who has a parent or guardian and such parent or guardian is found to be unfit or incapacitated, by the Committee or the Board, to care for and protect the safety and well-being of the child; or
(vi) who does not have parents and no one is willing to take care of, or whose parents have abandoned or surrendered him; or
(vii) who is missing or run away child, or whose parents cannot be found after making reasonable inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed; or
(viii) who has been or is being or is likely to be abused, tortured or exploited for the purpose of sexual abuse or illegal acts; or
(ix) who is found vulnerable and is likely to be inducted into drug abuse or trafficking; or
(x) who is being or is likely to be abused for unconscionable gains; or
(xi) who is victim of or affected by any armed conflict, civil unrest or natural calamity; or
(xii) who is at imminent risk of marriage before attaining the age of marriage and whose parents, family members, guardian and any other persons are likely to be responsible for solemnisation of such marriage.
Also read: Explained: The Shoma Sen bail judgment
The Bench also noted that the amended Standing Order clarified that ‘history sheet’ is an internal police document and not a publicly accessible report. It has cautioned police officers that care must be taken to ensure that identities of only those minor relatives are entered in the history sheet against whom evidence exists that such minor had earlier afforded shelter to the offender, while he was on the run from the police.
Impressed with the amended Standing Order, the Bench on the facts of Khan’s case opined that the decision taken by the Delhi police to the effect that the history sheet is only an internal police document and shall not be brought in the public domain largely addressed the concern expressed by it.
Since law and order is a subject matter of state governments, different states have different Rules for opening history sheets.
The Bench directed the Delhi police to give effect to the amended Standing Order in the case of Khan forthwith.
The Bench also directed the commissioner of police, Delhi to designate a senior police officer, of the rank of joint commissioner of police or above, who shall periodically audit and review the contents of the history sheets and will ensure confidentiality and a leeway to delete the names of such persons, juveniles and children who are, in the course of the investigation, found innocent and are entitled to be expunged from the category of “relations and connections” in a history sheet.
Suo motu intervention
Once the Bench had ruled on the petition filed by Khan, it decided to expand the scope of the case so that the police authorities in other states and Union territories may also consider the desirability of ensuring that no mechanical entries in history sheet are made of innocent individuals, simply because they happen to hail from the socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, along with those belonging to Backward Communities, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
“While we are not sure about the degree of their authenticity, there are some studies available in the public domain that reveal a pattern of an unfair, prejudicial and atrocious mindset. It is alleged that the police diaries are maintained selectively of individuals belonging to Vimukta Jatis, based solely on caste-bias, a somewhat similar manner as happened in colonial times,” the Bench observed.
The Bench thus directed all state governments to take necessary preventive measures to safeguard such communities from being subjected to inexcusable targeting or prejudicial treatment.
“We must bear in mind that these pre-conceived 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”, the Bench said.
The Bench reasoned that the value of human dignity and life is deeply embedded in Article 21 of our Constitution. The expression ‘life’ unequivocally includes the right to live a life worthy of human honour and all that goes along with it.
The Bench also noted that the amended Standing Order clarified that ‘history sheet’ is an internal police document and not a publicly accessible report.
“Self-regard, social image and an honest space for oneself in one’s surrounding society are just as significant to a dignified life as are adequate food, clothing and shelter,” the Bench said.
The Bench noted that a periodic audit mechanism overseen by a senior police officer, as directed for the National Capital Territory of Delhi, would serve as a critical tool to review and scrutinise the entries made so as to ascertain that these 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,” the Bench underscored.
The Bench acknowledged that though it was not aware of the existing Rules or policies or Standing Orders in operation in other states and Union territories, it thought fit to direct all states and 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 its observations in Khan’s case could be given effect in letter and spirit.
“Self-regard, social image and an honest space for oneself in one’s surrounding society are just as significant to a dignified life as are adequate food, clothing and shelter,” the Bench said.
The Bench ordered the registry to forward a copy of the judgment in Khan’s case to the chief secretary and director general of police of all states and Union territories to enable them to consider and comply with its Order as early as possible but not later than six months.
