Court Rules That Lack of Substantive Evidence and Arbitrary Approval Violates Constitutional Rights
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the B-Class history sheet opened against Satendra, also known as 'Dactar', a resident of Prayagraj. The court found that the Senior Superintendent of Police's approval to open the history sheet was arbitrary, lacked substantive evidence, and violated Satendra’s constitutional rights under Articles 19 and 21.
The judgment, delivered by a division bench comprising Justices J.J. Munir and Tarun Saxena, highlighted the misuse of power in approving the history sheet without proper application of mind and substantive evidence. The court emphasized that opening a B-Class history sheet is meant for professional or expert criminals who pose a significant security risk, a criterion not met in Satendra’s case.
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Harbansh Prasad Pandey, argued that the offences registered against him did not justify the opening of a history sheet under Regulation 228 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations. The court agreed, noting that the petitioner was not a professional or expert criminal as contemplated by the regulations.
The court also referenced the landmark judgments of Gobind v. State of M.P. and K.S. Puttaswamy, underscoring the constitutional limitations on invasive surveillance measures. The judgment reaffirmed that arbitrary surveillance measures deeply invade an individual's privacy and liberty, making them unconstitutional.
The court ordered that the impugned history sheet and the approval order dated 27.02.2020 be quashed, underscoring the need for police authorities to exercise their powers with caution and due diligence. The judgment has been communicated to the relevant police authorities to ensure compliance.
Bottom Line :
The opening of a B-Class history sheet under Regulation 228 of the UP Police Regulations requires substantive evidence of the individual being a professional or expert criminal posing a significant security risk. Arbitrary approval without proper application of mind violates constitutional rights under Articles 19 and 21.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations Regulation 228, Regulation 240.
Satendra @ Dactar v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2961194
