The
Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the police in states and Union Territories to
ensure that innocents and individuals from backward communities are not named
in a history sheet.
Initiating
suo motu action, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and K V Viswanathan said there
are some studies available in the public domain that reveal a pattern of
"unfair, prejudicial and atrocious" mindset.
Police authorities in states and Union Territories
should ensure that no mechanical entries in a history sheet are made of
innocent individuals belonging to socially, economically and educationally
disadvantaged backgrounds along with backward communities, scheduled castes or
scheduled tribes, the apex court said.
The
top court said a history sheet is an internal public document and not a
publicly accessible report. Extra care and precaution should be observed by
police officers while ensuring that the identity of a minor is not disclosed as
provided by law in a history sheet, it said.
"It
is alleged that police diaries are maintained selectively of individuals
belonging to Vimukta Jatis, based solely on caste bias, a somewhat similar
manner as happened in colonial times," the court observed.
"All
the state governments are therefore expected to take necessary preventive
measures to safeguard such communities from being subjected to inexcusable
targeting or prejudicial treatment.
"We
must bear in mind that these pre-conceived notions often render them invisible
victims' due to prevailing stereotypes associated with their communities, which
may often impede their right to live a life with self-respect," the bench
said.
The
top court said a periodical audit mechanism will serve as a critical tool to
review and scrutinise entries made in a history sheet.
Through
the effective implementation of audits, we can secure the elimination of such
deprecated practices and kindle the legitimate hope that the right to live with
human dignity, as guaranteed under Article 21, is well protected, it said.
"We
are conscious of the fact that states or Union Territories, other than the NCT
of Delhi, are not before us. They have not been heard. No positive mandamus can
thus be issued to them. Further, we are not aware of the existing
rules/policies or standing orders in vogue in different states/Union
Territories.
"We,
therefore, deem it appropriate, at this stage, to direct all the States/Union
Territories to revisit their policy regime and consider whether suitable
amendments on the pattern of the Delhi Model' are required to be made so that
our observations made in paragraphs 14 to 16 of this order can be given effect
in true letter and spirit," the bench said.
The
apex court directed its registry to forward a copy of this judgement to the
chief secretary and director general of police of all states and Union
Territories to enable them to consider and comply with what has been held
above, as early as possible but not later than six months.
The
top court's observations came in a judgement on a plea of AAP MLA Amanatullah
Khan challenging the Delhi Police's decision to declare him as a "bad
character".
The
apex court said the decision taken by the Delhi police that the History Sheet
is only an internal police document and it shall not be brought into the public
domain, largely addressing the concern.
"Secondly,
the extra care and precaution, to be now observed by a police officer while
ensuring that the identity of a minor child is not disclosed as per the law
too, is a necessary step to redress the appellant's grievances. It will surely
prevent the undesirable exposure that has been given to the minor children in
this case," it said.
"We
also direct the commissioner of Delhi Police to designate a senior police
officer in the rank of joint commissioner who shall periodically audit the
review of the contents of the history sheets and will ensure confidentiality
and a leeway to delete the names of such persons of juvenile children who are
in the course of investigation found innocent," it said.
It
goes without saying that if an officer of Delhi Police is found to have acted
contrary to the amended standing order and or the directions given herein
above, prompt action against such delinquent officer shall be taken, it said.