The Telangana High Court recently quashed a police record maintained against a 31-year-old advocate from Siddipet district and also issued a set of comprehensive directions to the Director General of Police (DGP) to “ensure that the preventive powers of the police are exercised judiciously, transparently, and constitutionally.”Justice N Tukaramji in his December 11, 2025, judgment observed that while the police are empowered to maintain public order and prevent crime, such authority must be exercised “within the bounds of law, fairness, and reasonableness.” He remarked that “the practice of mechanically continuing rowdy sheets without tangible justification undermines the very spirit of the Constitution and erodes public confidence in the rule of law.”‘Police record continued mechanically’The court was dealing with a writ petition filed by one Mesam Nagaraju in 2018 seeking the removal of his name from the police record maintained since July 2015 by the Chinna Koduru police station in Siddipet district. Nagaraju argued that the police had opened and continued the police record mechanically, without proper justification or a pattern of criminal behaviour that warranted such ongoing surveillance.The petitioner’s counsel submitted that 13 criminal cases were registered against the petitioner between 2014 and 2019, and of them, 10 cases have ended in acquittal or were amicably settled before the Lok Adalat. The counsel contended that continued maintenance of the police record against the petitioner was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the petitioner’s fundamental rights, as there was no evidence that the petitioner’s actions disturbed public peace or the criteria stipulated for a police record as required by Standing Order No. 601-A of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual.Also Read | Telangana HC dismisses firm’s appeal in Vemulawada temple human hair auction disputeRepresenting the state, the Government Pleader submitted that the police authorities have periodically renewed permission to extend the police record to monitor the petitioner’s activities, considering the petitioner’s past conduct and its alleged adverse impact on public peace and order.‘Demonstrates non-application of mind’The judge noted that it was a well-settled proposition of law that a police record can be opened and maintained only against individuals whose habitual conduct involves breach of peace, violence, intimidation, or offences involving moral turpitude, and not merely on account of suspicion or isolated incidents.Noting that judicial precedents have consistently held that the police record must be closed when an individual has not been involved in any criminal activity for a continuous period of three years, the judge held that continuation of police record beyond the statutory or reasonable period, without fresh material indicating potential for disturbance of public peace, constitutes a violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.Story continues below this adComing to the present case, the judge noted that, except for a cursory remark stating that the “rowdy sheeter is active and requires close surveillance as a preventive measure,” the officer has not furnished any substantive reason or supporting material justifying the continuation of the police record. The judge also noted that the competent authority merely endorsed the proposal with the note, “permitted-continued”. “Such an endorsement, made without examination of the relevant facts, material evidence, or the petitioner’s conduct post-2019, manifests a mechanical exercise of power,” the judge remarked.“The absence of such reasoning or supporting material in the present case demonstrates non-application of mind, rendering the order arbitrary and continuation of the sheet unsustainable in law,” Justice Tukaramji said.The court referred to various Supreme Court precedents and settled principles to rule that both the proposing officer and the competent authority have acted in a routine and perfunctory manner, without any contemporaneous material to justify the continuation of the police record. The court concluded that the continuance of the police record, therefore, cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and is liable to be declared illegal.Directions to DGPIn a detailed list of directions to the DGP, the court directed the establishment of a state-level oversight mechanism to conduct annual audits of all suspect sheets maintained across districts. The court directed the state police chief to issue a circular to all commissioners of police, superintendents of police, and station house officers (SHOs), emphasising the 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.Story continues below this adThe DGP was directed to ensure that all subordinate police officers, particularly those serving as SHOs and Circle Inspectors, receive periodic sensitisation and training regarding the constitutional limits of surveillance, the importance of human rights compliance, and the proper interpretation of Standing Orders 601-A and 601-B.The DGP was also directed to ensure that supervisory officers at every level maintain personal accountability for non-compliance with these directions and that instances of mechanical renewal, non-review, or arbitrary continuation of police records shall entail disciplinary action against the officers responsible. The court further sought a compliance report within six months detailing the measures taken to implement these constitutional safeguards.