The ruling in Kaptan Singh v State of Rajasthan and Others has once again placed the spotlight on the Rajasthan High Court on Surveillance Register norms.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand delivered an unambiguous message that police authorities cannot enter names into surveillance registers purely on personal whims.
A history sheet, the Court said, must reflect reasoned satisfaction based on credible material, not institutional suspicion or personal dislike.
The petitioner, facing ten criminal cases but convicted in only one, challenged the Superintendent of Police’s decision to open a history sheet against him.
His contention relied on the definition of habitual offender under the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act 1953, which requires more than three convictions on different occasions after the age of eighteen. He did not satisfy this statutory threshold, yet the police invoked surveillance mechanisms against him.
Court Interprets Rules and Reinforces Limits on Police Surveillance
The Court examined Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules 1965, especially Clause 2, which permits opening of a history sheet only when a person is reasonably believed to be habitually engaged in criminal acts or assisting such acts.
Justice Dhand stressed that this belief must flow from strong and reasonable grounds, not vague doubt or the mere pendency of cases.
The bench underscored that surveillance entries require a careful month wise and quarter wise review of conduct.
Administrative discretion, the Court ruled, must operate within legal boundaries, guided by fairness, reason and accountability. Decisions rooted in arbitrariness violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Registration of Cases Cannot Justify History Sheet Entry
In the petitioner’s case, several FIRs had resulted in acquittal, negative final reports or quashment. Only one conviction stood.
The Rajasthan High Court on Surveillance Register standards do not allow police to use mere registration of criminal cases as the basis to stigmatise an individual.
A history sheet cannot be used as a tool of oppression nor as a shortcut to bypass legal thresholds.
The Court declared that surveillance registers ordinarily include proclaimed offenders, repeat convicts or persons already bound over for good behaviour.
Only when authorities hold a reasonable belief of habitual criminality supported by factual material can a new name be entered. None of these prerequisites were fulfilled.
Since the impugned order lacked reasoning, material and statutory backing, the Court held that the petitioner’s inclusion violated his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The order was annulled and the police were directed to delete his name from the surveillance register.
Conclusion
The judgment reinforces constitutional safeguards by affirming that the Rajasthan High Court’s Surveillance Register jurisprudence does not permit the arbitrary use of history sheets.
‘The police must anchor such decisions in law, material evidence and transparent reasoning. Anything else undermines personal liberty and cannot survive judicial scrutiny.
Case and Bench Details
- Case Title: Kaptan Singh v State of Rajasthan and Others
- Court: Rajasthan High Court
- Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
- Date of Judgment: 11 December 2025
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
