Supreme Court Directs Review of History Sheets to Protect Privacy: Amanatullah Khan vs. Commissioner of Police (2024)

Date of the Judgment: May 7, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 383

Judges: Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Can the police include details of a suspect’s minor children in their ‘History Sheet’? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, emphasizing the need to protect the privacy and dignity of innocent family members. The Court was hearing an appeal against a Delhi High Court judgment that dismissed a plea to quash the ‘History Sheet’ opened against the appellant and the proposal to declare him as ‘Bad Character’. The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s judgment and issued directives to ensure that the privacy of innocent family members, especially minor children, is protected.

Case Background

The appellant, Amanatullah Khan, had a ‘History Sheet’ opened against him, and there was a proposal to declare him a ‘Bad Character’ by the Delhi Police. This included the entry of his name in the Surveillance ‘Register -X, Part II, Bundle A’ at Police Station Jamia Nagar. The ‘History Sheet’ also contained details of his school-going minor children and his wife, against whom there was no adverse material. The appellant approached the High Court of Delhi seeking to quash the ‘History Sheet’ and the proposal to declare him a ‘Bad Character’.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi dismissed the appellant’s writ petition on January 19, 2023. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. During the proceedings, the Supreme Court noted that the ‘History Sheet’ contained details of the appellant’s minor children and wife, against whom there was no adverse material. The Delhi Police, represented by Mr. Sanjay Jain, agreed to revisit the rules regarding the maintenance of ‘History Sheets’ to ensure the privacy of innocent family members. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, issued an amended Standing Order on March 21, 2024.

Legal Framework

The case references the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which were applicable in the NCT of Delhi. Specifically, Rule 23.8 and Rule 23.9 of the 1934 Rules were used as the basis for the format of the history sheets. The Court also considered Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which prohibits disclosing the identity of a child in conflict with the law or a child in need of care and protection. The Court emphasized the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to live a life with dignity.

Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 states:

“Prohibition on disclosure of identity of children.—(1) No report in any newspaper, magazine, news-sheet or audio-visual media or other forms of communication regarding any child in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection or a child victim or witness of a crime, shall disclose the name, address or school or any other particular, which may lead to the disclosure of identity of that child nor shall any picture of any such child be published: Provided that for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, holding an inquiry may permit such disclosure, if in its opinion such disclosure is in the best interest of the child.”

Arguments

The appellant argued that the inclusion of his minor children’s details in the ‘History Sheet’ was a violation of their privacy and dignity. The Delhi Police initially defended the practice based on the existing rules, but later agreed to revisit the rules. The Delhi Police, through Mr. Sanjay Jain, acknowledged the need to protect the privacy of innocent family members and introduced an amended Standing Order.

Submissions by the Appellant:

• The inclusion of details of minor children in the history sheet is a violation of their privacy and dignity.
• There was no adverse material against the minor children to warrant their inclusion in the history sheet.

Submissions by the Respondents (Delhi Police):

• The format of the history sheet was prescribed following Rule 23.8 and Rule 23.9 of the Punjab Police Rules 1934.
• Initially defended the inclusion of family details as per existing rules.
• Later, agreed to revisit the archaic rules to protect the privacy of innocent family members.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a numbered list. However, the core issue was:

• Whether the details of minor relatives should be included in the history sheet of an offender, and if so, under what conditions.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s judgment. The Court directed that the amended Standing Order dated March 21, 2024, should be implemented in the appellant’s case. The Court also directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to designate a senior police officer to periodically audit/review the contents of the History Sheets to ensure confidentiality and to delete the names of innocent persons. The Court also expanded the scope of the proceedings to consider the desirability of ensuring that no mechanical entries in History Sheets are made of innocent individuals from socially, economically, and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court viewed Rule 23.8 and Rule 23.9 of the Punjab Police Rules 1934 as archaic and requiring revision. The Court emphasized the importance of Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and directed that it be meticulously followed. The Court also underscored the significance of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in protecting the right to live with human dignity.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily concerned with protecting the privacy and dignity of innocent family members, especially minor children, who were being unfairly included in ‘History Sheets’. The Court also emphasized the need to prevent discriminatory practices against socially, economically, and educationally disadvantaged communities. The Court’s reasoning was driven by the constitutional guarantee of the right to life with dignity under Article 21.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them as they did not adequately protect the rights of innocent family members. The Court emphasized that the right to live with human dignity, as guaranteed under Article 21, must be protected.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The inclusion of minor children’s details in the ‘History Sheet’ violates their privacy and dignity.
• There was no evidence that the minor children had committed any offense or aided the offender.
• The existing rules were archaic and did not adequately protect the rights of innocent family members.
• Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act prohibits disclosing the identity of a child in conflict with the law or a child in need of care and protection.
• Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life with dignity, which includes self-regard and social image.

“The amended Standing Order emphatically says that no details of any minor relatives , i.e., son, daughter, 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.”

“It seems that so far as the case in hand is concerned, the decision taken by the respondents to the effect that the History Sheet is only an internal police document and it shall not be brought in public domain, largely addresses the concern expressed by us in the beginning.”

“The value for 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.”

Key Takeaways

• Details of minor relatives should not be included in the ‘History Sheet’ unless there is evidence that they have provided shelter to the offender.
• The identities of minor children should not be disclosed as per Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
• Police authorities must ensure that the right to privacy and dignity of innocent family members is protected.
• The Court has directed a review of ‘History Sheet’ practices across all states and union territories.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The amended Standing Order dated 21.03.2024 be given effect forthwith in the appellant’s case also.
• The Commissioner of Police, Delhi to designate a senior police officer, in the rank of Joint Commissioner of Police or above, who shall periodically audit/review the contents of the History Sheets and will ensure confidentiality and a leeway to delete the names of such persons/juvenile/children who are, in the course of investigation, found innocent and are entitled to be expunged from the category of “relations and connections” in a History Sheet.
• 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 the observations made in paragraphs 14 to 16 of this order can be given effect in true letter and spirit.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the details of minor relatives should not be included in the history sheet of an offender unless there is evidence that the minor has provided shelter to the offender while he was on the run from the police. This case clarifies the scope of police powers in maintaining history sheets and emphasizes the need to protect the privacy and dignity of innocent family members, particularly minor children. It also highlights the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and Article 21 of the Constitution.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Amanatullah Khan vs. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors. is a significant step towards protecting the privacy and dignity of innocent family members of individuals under police surveillance. The Court’s directives to review and amend the rules regarding ‘History Sheets’ will have a far-reaching impact on police practices across India. The judgment emphasizes the need for a balanced approach that respects both law enforcement needs and individual rights.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• Police Procedure
• Privacy Rights
• Juvenile Justice
• Article 21, Constitution of India
• Section 74, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

FAQ

Q: What is a ‘History Sheet’ in the context of this case?

A: A ‘History Sheet’ is an internal police document containing information about individuals with a criminal record or those suspected of criminal activity. It is used for surveillance and tracking purposes.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court intervene in this case?

A: The Supreme Court intervened because the ‘History Sheet’ in this case included details of the appellant’s minor children and wife, against whom there was no adverse material. The Court emphasized the need to protect the privacy and dignity of innocent family members.

Q: What did the Supreme Court direct regarding the inclusion of minor relatives in ‘History Sheets’?

A: The Supreme Court directed that details of minor relatives should not be included in the ‘History Sheet’ unless there is evidence that the minor has provided shelter to the offender while he was on the run from the police.

Q: What is the significance of Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act in this case?

A: Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 prohibits disclosing the identity of a child in conflict with the law or a child in need of care and protection. The Supreme Court emphasized the need to follow this provision when including details of minor relatives in ‘History Sheets’.

Q: What is the ‘Delhi Model’ mentioned in the judgment?

A: The ‘Delhi Model’ refers to the amended Standing Order issued by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, which provides guidelines for the maintenance of ‘History Sheets’ and emphasizes the protection of privacy of innocent family members. The Supreme Court directed all States and Union Territories to consider adopting a similar model.