The Allahabad High Court has quashed a Class-B history sheet opened against an individual, ruling that law enforcement failed to demonstrate that the man was a habitual offender requiring lifelong state surveillance.
Lack of Recent Record and Arbitrary Approval
A division bench comprising Justice J J Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena set aside the police oversight file, observing that senior authorities had sanctioned the surveillance without adequate evaluation. The bench highlighted that the Senior Superintendent of Police granted approval on Feb. 27, 2020, through a routine, rubber-stamped order rather than evaluating whether the facts justified such action.
The court noted that while police initiated the surveillance file in 2020, no criminal activity had been recorded against the petitioner since 2015. During that five-year interval, the record remained entirely clean. Although eight criminal cases had been registered against the individual over time, the judges observed that these matters were unconnected and that several had already concluded through bails, compromises, or complete exonerations.
Constitutional Protections and Statutory Limits
Addressing the legal implications, the High Court emphasized that subjecting a citizen to perpetual police supervision severely curtails constitutional freedoms. The judges stated that such monitoring directly impacts fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which protect personal liberty, privacy, and freedom of movement.
While acknowledging that public interest can supersede individual rights in cases involving confirmed, hardened offenders, the court stressed that authorities must identify such cases with extreme care and precision. Under the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, Class-B history sheets are reserved specifically for confirmed professional criminals, such as habitual cheats, forgers, smugglers, goondas, and hired ruffians.
The court concluded that the petitioner’s record did not display the professional criminality required under the regulations, ruling that administrative carelessness cannot be permitted to impose lifelong restrictions on individual liberty.
