Supreme Court Directs Protection of Privacy in Police History Sheets and Calls for Nationwide Policy Review

In Amanatullah Khan v. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors. (2024 Latest Caselaw 307 SC), the Supreme Court emphasised that police surveillance mechanisms must respect the dignity, privacy and constitutional rights of individuals under Article 21. While partly addressing the appellant's grievance regarding his police history sheet, the Court directed the Delhi Police to implement revised safeguards protecting innocent family members, particularly minor children, and called upon all States and Union Territories to review their policies to eliminate discriminatory and arbitrary practices. 

The appellant challenged the opening of a police History Sheet against him and the proposal to declare him a "Bad Character" by entering his name in the Surveillance Register-X maintained at Police Station Jamia Nagar, Delhi. He approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the History Sheet and the surveillance proceedings. The High Court dismissed the petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. During the proceedings, the Supreme Court expressed concern that the History Sheet contained details relating to the appellant's school-going minor children despite there being no adverse material against them. This prompted the Delhi Police to revisit its Standing Order governing History Sheets and surveillance records. 

Whether the existing practice of maintaining police History Sheets adequately protected the privacy, dignity and rights of innocent family members, particularly minor children, and whether appropriate safeguards were required in the maintenance of surveillance records. 

The Supreme Court took note of the amended Standing Order issued by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi during the pendency of the proceedings. The Court observed that: •The amended Standing Order restricted the "relations and connections" column to persons who could genuinely provide shelter to the offender while absconding or who were associates, abettors or receivers connected with criminal activities. •Details of minor children, siblings or other minor relatives could not be entered in a History Sheet unless there existed evidence that they had previously provided shelter to the offender while evading the police. •The amended policy expressly required compliance with Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which protects the identity of children in conflict with law, children in need of care and protection, child victims and child witnesses. •The History Sheet was clarified to be an internal police document and not one intended for public disclosure. •A senior police officer of the rank of Joint Commissioner of Police or above should periodically audit History Sheets to ensure confidentiality and remove the names of innocent persons, juveniles or children wherever appropriate. •Any police officer acting contrary to the amended Standing Order should face prompt disciplinary action. The Court further observed that studies available in the public domain indicated the possibility of discriminatory maintenance of police records against members of socially and economically disadvantaged communities, including Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Communities and Vimukta Jatis. It emphasised that such practices undermine the constitutional guarantee of dignity under Article 21. 

The Supreme Court: •Modified the judgment of the Delhi High Court. •Directed that the amended Standing Order dated 21 March 2024 be implemented in the appellant's case. •Directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to establish a periodic audit mechanism through a senior officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner of Police. •Directed the Registry to forward copies of the judgment to the Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Police of all States and Union Territories. •Called upon all States and Union Territories to review their policies relating to History Sheets and surveillance registers within six months and consider adopting safeguards similar to the Delhi model. 

The judgment reinforces that police surveillance practices must conform to constitutional guarantees of privacy, dignity and equality under Article 21. It recognises the need to protect innocent family members, particularly children, from unnecessary inclusion in police records and encourages all States and Union Territories to modernise their surveillance policies by eliminating arbitrary, mechanical or discriminatory practices. The decision marks an important step towards balancing effective policing with the protection of fundamental rights.