| ASPECTS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | Amanatullah Khan vs. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors. |
| Introduction | The appellant filed a petition to quash the ‘History Sheet’ and ‘Bad Character’ proposal; the High Court dismissal led to this appeal. |
| Factual Background | The appellant’s petition objected to minor children’s inclusion in the History Sheet without adverse material; the Punjab Police Rules 1934 format was used. Respondents agreed to review rules for protecting innocent family members. |
| Legal Issues | Inclusion of minor relatives in History Sheet; disclosure of identities of children in conflict with law. |
| Applicable Law | Amended Standing Order by Commissioner of Police, Delhi (21.03.2024) provided guidelines for History Sheets, emphasizing the inclusion of only those who can shelter offenders and prohibiting disclosure of children’s identities in conflict with the law. |
| Analysis | The amended Standing Order addressed concerns by ensuring the Sheet is an internal police document and protecting the identities of minor relatives. Court directed the implementation of an amended Order in the appellant’s case and designated a senior officer to review History Sheets. The court also addressed mechanical entries of innocent individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. |
| Conclusion | Court modified the High Court’s judgment, directing implementation of amended Standing Order and urging states/territories to revisit policies for protecting innocent individuals. |
| Current Scenario | Judgment delivered on May 7, 2024; court directed Registry to forward copies to Chief Secretary and Director General of Police of all states/territories for compliance within six months. |
CASE SUMMARY – The appellant filed a writ petition to quash a History Sheet and declaration as Bad Character, which the High Court dismissed. The Supreme Court modified the judgment, directing implementation of an amended Standing Order. It also addressed mechanical entries in History Sheets and urged policy revisions to protect innocent individuals.
SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Read Also–CHALLENGE TO MINIMUM VIVA VOCE MARKS UNDER ARTICLE 14 AND 16
