Telangana HC Orders State-Level Oversight for Police Records, Quashes 'Mechanical' Rowdy Sheet
The Telangana High Court has taken a strong stance against what it called "mechanical" police practices. The court recently quashed a rowdy sheet maintained against a Siddipet-based advocate. It also issued comprehensive directions to the state police chief to establish a proper oversight mechanism.
Court Slams Practice That 'Undermines Constitution'
Justice N Tukaramji delivered the judgment on December 11, 2025. The judge observed that police powers to maintain public order must be exercised within legal bounds. "The practice of mechanically continuing rowdy sheets without tangible justification undermines the very spirit of the Constitution," Justice Tukaramji remarked. He added that such practices erode public confidence in the rule of law.
The court was hearing a writ petition filed by advocate Mesam Nagaraju in 2018. Nagaraju sought removal of his name from a rowdy sheet maintained since July 2015 by Chinna Koduru police station in Siddipet district.
Advocate's Case Highlights Systemic Issues
Nagaraju's counsel argued that police opened and continued the rowdy sheet mechanically. They presented evidence showing that 13 criminal cases were registered against Nagaraju between 2014 and 2019. Of these, 10 cases ended in acquittal or were settled amicably before Lok Adalat.
The counsel contended that continued maintenance of the rowdy sheet was arbitrary and illegal. They argued it violated fundamental rights since there was no evidence that Nagaraju's actions disturbed public peace. The petition stated the police action did not meet criteria stipulated in Standing Order No. 601-A of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual.
Representing the state, the Government Pleader submitted that police authorities periodically renewed permission to extend the rowdy sheet. They claimed this was necessary to monitor the petitioner's activities considering past conduct and alleged impact on public order.
Court Finds 'Non-Application of Mind'
The judge noted that rowdy sheets can only be maintained against individuals whose habitual conduct involves breach of peace, violence, intimidation, or offences involving moral turpitude. Judicial precedents consistently hold that rowdy sheets must be closed when an individual shows no criminal activity for three continuous years.
Justice Tukaramji found that continuation of the rowdy sheet beyond reasonable period, without fresh material indicating potential disturbance of public peace, violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Examining the specific case, the judge noted that except for a cursory remark stating the "rowdy sheeter is active and requires close surveillance," the officer provided no substantive reason or supporting material. The competent authority merely endorsed the proposal with the note "permitted-continued."
"Such an endorsement, made without examination of relevant facts, manifests a mechanical exercise of power," the judge said. "The absence of reasoning demonstrates non-application of mind, rendering the order arbitrary."
The court referred to Supreme Court precedents and settled principles. It ruled that both the proposing officer and competent authority acted in a routine and perfunctory manner. They lacked contemporaneous material to justify continuing the rowdy sheet. The court therefore declared the continuance illegal.
Detailed Directions to Director General of Police
The court issued a detailed list of directions to the Director General of Police (DGP):
- Establish a state-level oversight mechanism to conduct annual audits of all suspect sheets maintained across districts.
- Issue a circular to all commissioners of police, superintendents of police, and station house officers (SHOs). This circular must emphasize strict adherence to Standing Orders 601-A and 601-B of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual while opening, maintaining, reviewing, or closing suspect/police records.
- Ensure all subordinate police officers, particularly SHOs and Circle Inspectors, receive periodic sensitization and training. This training should cover constitutional limits of surveillance, human rights compliance, and proper interpretation of Standing Orders 601-A and 601-B.
- Ensure supervisory officers at every level maintain personal accountability for non-compliance with these directions. Instances of mechanical renewal, non-review, or arbitrary continuation of police records shall entail disciplinary action against responsible officers.
The court further directed the DGP to submit a compliance report within six months. This report must detail measures taken to implement these constitutional safeguards.
This judgment reinforces constitutional protections against arbitrary state action. It establishes important checks on police surveillance powers in Telangana.
