AMANATULLAH KHANversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI & ORS.

                  [2024] 5 S.C.R. 927 : 2024 INSC 383

                      Amanatullah Khan
                              v.
             The Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors.
                      Criminal Appeal No. 2349 of 2024
                  (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5719/2023)
                                  07 May 2024
              [Surya Kant* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the names of the Appellant’s minor children and his wife
       against whom there is no adverse material should be included in
       the History Sheet of the Appellant.

                                   Headnotes†
       Punjab Police Rules 1934 (As applicable to NCT of Delhi),
       rule 23.8 and rule 23.9 – Format of history sheet – Need to
       revisit archaic rules – Amended Standing Order issued on
       21.03.2024 – In column on ‘relations and connections’ only
       those persons who can provide shelter to history sheeter to
       be reflected – Names of associates in crime, abettors and
       receivers to be included – No details of minor relatives shall be
       recorded anywhere in History Sheet – Unless there is evidence
       that minor has afforded shelter – Value for human dignity and
       life deeply embedded in Article 21 of Constitution – Expression
       ‘life’ unequivocally includes the right to live a life worthy of
       human honour and all that goes along with it.
       Held: Writ Petition filed by Appellant under A. 226 Constitution
       r/w s. 482 CrPC for quashing of ‘History Sheet’ opened against
       him – Petition dismissed by High Court – Judgment challenged –
       original Standing Order of 10.06.2022 under ‘preparation of
       History Sheet’ replicated from archaic Punjab Police Rules 1934 –
       Amended Standing Order issued on 21.03.2024 – Provides certain
       safeguards: inclusion of names of only such persons who can afford
       history sheeter shelter when on the run from police – Names of
       associates in crime, abettors and receivers to be included – No
       details of any minor relatives, i.e., son, daughter, siblings shall be
       recorded anywhere – Unless there is evidence that such minor has
       afforded shelter – s.74 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
       Children) Act, 2015 to be meticulously followed – Clarifies ‘History
* Author
928                                                                [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                         Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Sheet’ is an internal police document, not a publicly accessible
       report. [Paras 6-7]
       Appeal partly allowed – Impugned High Court judgment stands
       modified – Amended Standing Order will prevent undesirable
       exposure of Appellant’s minor children – Amended Standing Order
       to be given effect forthwith in Appellant’s case – Direction given to
       Commissioner of Police, Delhi to designate a senior police officer of
       the rank of Joint Commissioner of Police or above, to periodically
       audit contents of History Sheets, ensure confidentiality, and delete
       names of persons/children found innocent during investigation from
       “relations and connections” category in History Sheet – Prompt
       action to be taken against any police officer acting contrary to
       amended Standing Order. [Paras 9-13]
       Exercising suo moto powers, scope of proceedings expanded
       to police authorities in other states and UTs – To consider
       undesirability of the practice of mechanically including names of
       innocent individuals, by virtue of hailing from a particular socially,
       economically and educationally disadvantaged background –
       Allegation of police diaries being maintained selectively of
       individuals of vimukta jatis, based solely on caste bias – State
       Governments to take necessary preventive measures to safeguard
       such communities – Pre-conceived notions render them ‘invisible
       victims’ – May often impede their right to live a life with self-
       respect – value for human dignity and life is deeply embedded in
       Article 21 – Expression ‘life’ under a. 21 includes right to live a life
       worthy of human honour – Self-regard, social image, honest space
       for oneself in surrounding society, just as significant to dignified life
       as are adequate food, clothing and shelter. [Paras 14-15]
       Periodic audit mechanism overseen by senior police officer as
       directed for NCT of Delhi – Critical tool to review and scrutinize
       entries to check for biases and discriminatory practice – Can help
       eliminate such deprecated practices – States/Union Territories
       not before the Court – No positive mandamus can be issued –
       Urged to revisit their policy-regime and consider whether suitable
       amendments on pattern of ‘Delhi Model’ are required to be made.
       [Paras 16-17]

                                    List of Acts
       Constitution of India; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
       Children) Act, 2015; Punjab Police Rules 1934.
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                             929

     Amanatullah Khan v. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors.


                             List of Keywords
     History Sheet; ‘Relations and connections’; Article 21; Right to live
     with dignity; Right to live a life worthy of human honour.

                            Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2349
     of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 19.01.2023 of the High Court
     of Delhi at New Delhi in WPCRL No. 1326 of 2022
                         Appearances for Parties
     Wajeeh Shafiq, Naman Jain, Ms. Ramsha Shan, Advs. for the
     Appellant.
     Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. (A.S.G.), Saransh Kumar, Shubhendu Anand,
     Umesh Babu Chourasia, Kritagya Kait, Mukesh Kumar Maroria,
     Advs. for the Respondents.
                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                 Judgment
     Surya Kant, J.
1.   Leave granted.
2.   The appellant approached the High Court of Delhi through a writ
     petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section
     482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the
     ‘History Sheet’ opened against him and the proposal to declare him
     as ‘Bad Character’ with the entry of his name in the Surveillance
     ‘Register-X, Part II, Bundle A’ at Police Station Jamia Nagar, District:
     South-East, Delhi. The Single Judge of High Court has, vide the
     impugned judgment dated 19.01.2023, dismissed the appellant’s
     writ petition, giving rise to these proceedings.
3.   Upon notice, the Delhi Police entered appearance through Mr. Sanjay
     Jain, learned senior counsel, who was apprised of some disturbing
     contents of the History Sheet to the extent it pertained to the school
     going minor children of the appellant and his wife, against whom
     there was apparently no adverse material whatsoever for inclusion
     in the History Sheet. It was then apprised that the format of the
     history sheeters was prescribed following Rule 23.8 and Rule 23.9
930                                                              [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       of the Punjab Police Rules 1934 (in short, the “1934 Rules”) as were
       applicable in the NCT of Delhi. Mr. Jain, learned senior counsel for
       the respondents, however, fairly agreed to re-visit the archaic rules
       with a view to ensure that the dignity, self-respect and privacy of the
       innocent people, who incidentally happen to be the family members
       of a suspect, is not compromised at any cost.
4.     Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned senior counsel has today placed on
       record the amended Standing Order No.L&O/54/2022 issued by
       the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. The aforesaid Standing Order
       pertains to ‘Surveillance of History Sheeters and Bad Characters’. It
       appears that the Original Standing order was issued on 10.06.2022
       and paragraph 9(2) thereof titled as “Preparation of History Sheet”
       was replicated from provisions of the 1934 Rules.
5.     With the amended Standing Order issued on 21.03.2024, the
       Commissioner of Police has provided as follows:
            “The space for “relation and connection” should be filled
            in with a view to afford clues about those persons with
            whom the criminal is likely to harbour when wanted by the
            police, including relations or friends living at a distance
            from his home, and his associates in crime, abettors and
            receivers. It may be noted that the space for “relations and
            connections” in the history sheet should reflect identities
            of those persons who can afforded him shelter when
            the offender is running/wanted by the police (in general)
            and should include his associates in crime, abettors and
            receivers (in particular) and 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 had, afforded shelter to
            the offender, “while he was on run from police”.
            While preparing History Sheet, it may also be kept in mind
            that as per Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
            Protection of Children) Act, 2015, there is a prohibition on
            disclosing the 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 etc. Even though the History
            Sheet is an internal Police document and not a publicly
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                            931

     Amanatullah Khan v. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors.


           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”. In addition to above, the particular nature
           of each person’s connection should be noted against each,
           and, when persons shown as connections themselves
           have history sheets, a cross reference with those History
           Sheets should be given. Maximum phone numbers/
           mobile numbers or associates/relatives/acquaintances of
           BCs should be collected and placed for record. Aadhar
           Number, EPIC number, e-mail ID, social media accounts/
           profiles viz, facebook, Instagram ID, Twitter ID etc. to be
           placed on file. Further mobile numbers & other available
           details of associates/relatives/acquaintance of BC should
           be collected and placed on record.”
6.   We find from the amended Standing Order that in the column
     “relations and connections”, it has been decided that identities of
     only those persons shall be reflected who can afford the history
     sheeter/bad character shelter, when the offender is running/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, 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.
7.   Secondly, the amended provision now mandates that Section 74
     of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
     shall be meticulously followed, whereunder there is a prohibition
     on disclosing 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.
8.   The amended Standing Order further clarifies that ‘History Sheet’ is
     an internal police document and not a publicly accessible report. It
     has cautioned the 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
932                                                           [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       police. The safeguard with regard to the details of phone numbers,
       Aadhar Card, EPIC number, e-mail I.D., social media accounts etc.,
       have also been suggested in the amended Standing Order.
9.     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.
       Secondly, 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 will surely prevent the undesirable
       exposure that has been given to the minor children in this case.
10. All that we propose to direct the police authorities is that the amended
    Standing Order dated 21.03.2024 be given effect forthwith in the
    appellant’s case also.
11. In addition, we also direct 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.
12. It goes without saying that if a Police Officer of Delhi Police is found
    to have acted contrary to the amended Standing Order and or the
    directions given herein above, prompt action against such delinquent
    officer shall be taken.
13. The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 19.01.2023 stands
    modified and the instant criminal appeal is disposed of in the above
    terms.
14. Having partially addressed the grievance of the appellant, we now,
    in exercise of our suo motu powers, propose to expand the scope
    of these proceedings 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
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                          933

    Amanatullah Khan v. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors.


     with those belonging to Backward Communities, Scheduled Castes
     & Scheduled Tribes. 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. 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. All
     the State Governments are therefore expected 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.
15. 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. 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.
16. It seems 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 scrutinize 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.
17. We are conscious of the fact that States or Union Territories, other
    than the NCT of Delhi, are not before us. They have not been heard.
    No positive mandamus can thus be issued to them. Further, we
    are not aware of the existing Rules/Policies or Standing Orders in
    vogue in different States/Union Territories. 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 made in paragraphs 14 to 16 of this order can be
    given effect in true letter and spirit.
934                                                                 [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


18. The Registry is, accordingly, directed to forward a copy of this
    judgement to the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police
    of all States and Union Territories to enable them to consider and
    comply with what has been held above, as early as possible but not
    later than six months.
19. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed with directions.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Aandrita Deb, Hony. Associate Editor
                                   (Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.)