Police Has No Unbridled Power To Open History-Sheet On Likes Or Dislikes; Cogent Material Required For Reasonable Suspicion: Allahabad High Court

The Court specifically observed that Regulations 228 and 240 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations do not give any power to the police to use it in such a way which has the necessary consequence of squeezing out the fundamental freedom of the citizen.

The Court added that the police do not possess a licence to enter the names of whoever they like or dislike in the surveillance register.

Opining so, a division Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Santosh Rai quashed a June 2025 order of the Superintendent of Police, Siddharthnagar, which had rejected the petitioner's (Mohammad Wajir) plea for closure of his History-Sheet.

Case in brief

Admittedly, petitioner Wazir had only one case registered against him under the U.P. Cow Slaughter Act in 2016. He had since been charged and is facing trial, but no other FIR, NCR, or complaint has ever been registered against him.

Since a history sheet was opened against him, he approached the SP Concerned with a representation for its closure; however, it was rejected on June 23, 2025, citing Police Regulations 228 and 240.

Aggrieved, he moved the High Court, wherein his counsel contended that the opening of the history sheet was wrong as it was done without cogent and reliable material and in violation of para 228, 229, 231, 233 and other relevant rules of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations.

It was argued that the police authority opened the history sheet on the basis of only one incident/case, which was registered 8 years ago.

HC's order

At the outset, the bench noted that ordinarily, the names of persons with previous criminal records alone are entered in the surveillance register, and such persons must be proclaimed offenders, previous convicts, or persons who have already been placed on security for good behaviour.

In addition, the Court further noted that the names of persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property, whether they have been convicted or not, can be categorised and entered in the surveillance register under the Police Regulation.

Against this backdrop, the Bench found that the SP had “very casually rejected” the representation without any supporting material despite the fact that UP Police had nothing to substantiate that the petitioner is involved in the nature of offence envisaged by Regulation 228(A) and, admittedly, the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

The division bench added that a solitary eight-year-old case under the Cow Slaughter Act did not make the petitioner a habitual offender.

Furthermore, referring to the top court's rulings in the cases of Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 and Malak Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab & Haryana & Ors, 1980, the Court reiterated that while the Police Regulations have force of law, they cannot be misused to arbitrarily subject citizens to surveillance.

Against this backdrop, the bench concluded that there was no sufficient ground to entertain a reasonable belief that surveillance was required in the petitioner's case. It also opined that there exists no evidence to support the opening of the history sheet.

Therefore, the same was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed.