The Allahabad High Court has quashed a Class-B history sheet opened against an advocate and directed the Uttar Pradesh government to modernize its outdated police regulations to address evolving forms of crime and surveillance.
A division bench comprising Justice J J Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena delivered the order on August 19, ruling that existing police rules rely on nineteenth-century monitoring techniques that are no longer suited to address modern criminal activity. The court set aside the surveillance record maintained against the lawyer by the Prayagraj police, observing that authorities had issued the order mechanically and without proper application of mind.
Call For Regulatory Reform
Highlighting the changing nature of crime, the bench observed that regulatory frameworks established to track traditional offenses, such as cattle poisoning, are ineffective against modern cybercriminals capable of draining millions from bank accounts electronically. The justices noted that contemporary technological tools, including closed-circuit television networks, offer far greater efficiency than traditional physical trailing or picketing. Consequently, the court recommended that the state government update, revise, and amend the provisions governing history sheets within the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations.
Case Background And Police Criticism
The ruling followed a petition filed by an active member and office-bearer of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association who challenged the opening of a history sheet against him. The petitioner maintained that he was falsely implicated in criminal matters to pressure him into withdrawing from the prosecution of his brother’s murder case, noting that he was subsequently acquitted in all related charges. State counsel defended the surveillance order, arguing that six criminal cases registered against the advocate justified ongoing monitoring.
Evaluating the petitioner’s record, the court determined that his profile did not align with that of an expert or professional offender subject to lifelong surveillance under a Class-B history sheet. The bench criticized the Senior Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (City) in Prayagraj for granting routine, rubber-stamped approvals for the record. The court stated that imposing perpetual surveillance on a respectable legal professional without proper cause compromises the constitutional balance of fundamental liberty.
