Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that a person cannot be declared a “history-sheeter” or placed under police surveillance mechanically, holding that such action must be based on “reasonable belief founded on objective and verifiable material”.
The court also held that the accused has to be afforded an opportunity of being heard, as mandated under the J&K Police Rules, 1960, even in cases involving serious criminal allegations.
Justice Sanjay Parihar made the observation while quashing the history sheet and surveillance entry of petitioner Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh and directing the authorities to remove his name from Surveillance Register No. 10 maintained at Police Station Beerwah in Budgam district.
The government had opposed the plea by alleging that the petitioner was a “habitual offender” involved in multiple criminal cases registered at different police stations.
According to the respondents, at least six FIRs had been registered against Sheikh for offences punishable under Sections 420 (cheating), 376 (rape), 354 (assault or criminal force to outrage modesty of a woman) and 467 (forgery of valuable security and related documents) of the RPC/IPC.
The authorities also referred to FIR No. 52/2023, in which the petitioner was accused of allegedly duping a person of Rs 2.80 lakh.
Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the court held that the police were still bound to comply with the procedural safeguards prescribed under law before branding a person as a history-sheeter.
The accused petitioner had challenged the opening of a history sheet against him and his inclusion in the surveillance register on the ground that the action was arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the J&K Police Rules.
He submitted that he had never been convicted in any case and had already secured bail from competent courts in the FIRs registered against him. He further alleged that the cases were politically motivated and that no notice or hearing had been provided before his name was entered in the surveillance register.
While examining the matter, Justice Parihar referred to Rules 698, 699 and 702 of the J&K Police Rules governing surveillance registers and preparation of history sheets. He observed that Rule 699 specifically requires the Superintendent of Police to hear the objections of the concerned person before directing entry of his name in Surveillance Register No. 10.
The court held that the police authorities failed to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory safeguards. It noted that no material had been placed on record to establish that the competent authority had formed the required subjective satisfaction on the basis of objective and verifiable evidence before treating the petitioner as a habitual offender.
Referring to certain Supreme Court judgments, the court reiterated that surveillance powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in a manner that infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
It further observed that branding a person as a history-sheeter carries “grave and adverse consequences” affecting dignity, privacy and personal liberty, and therefore requires strict adherence to legal procedure.
Holding that the entry of the petitioner’s name in the surveillance register had been made “without cogent reasons” and “without following the mandatory procedure”, the court allowed the petition, quashed the history sheet and directed the respondents to remove his name from Surveillance Register No. 10 forthwith.
