Ensure innocents, individuals from backward communities not named in history sheet: SC

New Delhi: 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. “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.”