Amanatullah Khan case: Supreme Court warns police against adding names of innocent minors in history sheets

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cautioned the Delhi Police against adding names or details of innocent minor relatives in history sheets opened against persons with long criminal records (history sheeters) [Amanatullah Khan v. Delhi Commissioner of Police]..The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan made it clear that no details of any minor relatives should be recorded anywhere in a history sheet unless there is evidence that such a minor has afforded shelter to an absconding history sheeter/ offender..The Court passed the order while disposing of a plea by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Amanatullah Khan who had challenged the decision of the Delhi Police to list him as a 'bad character' and open a history sheet against him. While hearing this case, the Court noted that the history sheet opened against Khan by the Delhi Police contained details of his school-going children..The Court went on to point out that there was an amended standing order dated March 21, 2024 which laid down that the names of minor relatives should not be added in a history sheet, unless the minor sheltered an offender. The Court, therefore, ordered the Delhi police to ensure that this standing order is adhered to. The Court also directed the police to conduct periodic audits and start deleting names of minors whose names were added in history sheets but were found innocent during the investigation."We also direct the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to designate a senior police officer, in the rank of Joint Commissioner of Police or above, who shall periodically audit/ review the contents of the History Sheets and will ensure confidentiality and a leeway to delete the names of such persons/ juvenile/ children who are, in the course of investigation found innocent and are entitled to be expunged from the category of “relations and connections” in a History Sheet," the Court ordered. It added that if a police officer is found to have flouted the mandate to protect the identities of minors while preparing history sheets, prompt action should be taken against such delinquent officers. .The Court also observed that the March 2024 standing order would be applicable in Amanatullah Khan's case. Further it was mentioned in the Delhi police standing order that a history sheet is an internal police document which would not be disclosed in the public domain. All of this largely addressed the concerns raised with respect to the history sheet against Khan, the Court opined. "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 (Khan's) grievances. It will surely prevent the undesirable exposure that has been given to the minor children in this case. All that we propose to direct the police authorities is that the amended Standing Order dated 21.03.2024 be given effect forthwith in the appellant’s case also," the Court added..Khan, a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in Delhi who represents the Okhla constituency, had earlier approached the Delhi High Court to quash the history sheet. He approached the Supreme Court for relief after the High Court dismissed his plea. While deciding on the matter, the Court yesterday also took suo motu cognisance of mechanical entries made in history sheets prepared by the police against innocent individuals who hail from socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. In the order, the Court directed all State governments to take necessary preventive measures to safeguard such communities from being subjected to inexcusable targeting or prejudicial treatment.Advocates Wajeeh Shafiq, Naman Jain and Ramsha Shan appeared for Amanatullah Khan.Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain and advocates Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Saransh Kumar, Shubhendu Anand, Umesh Babu Chourasia and Kritagya Kait appeared for the Delhi Police..[Read Judgment]