Kiran Raj

The Dharwad Bench of Karnataka High Court has directed the Superintendent of Police, Ballari, to reconsider a petitioner’s representation for the removal of his name from the rowdy list. The petitioner challenged the continuation of a rowdy sheet against him despite his acquittal in certain criminal cases, asserting that the authorities had not undertaken the mandatory review process before maintaining his name in the register. The court quashed the previous order that refused to entertain his request and directed the competent authority to evaluate the petitioner’s plea in accordance with legal precedents.

The petition was filed before the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated February 15, 2024, which placed his name in the rowdy register. Additionally, he sought a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to consider his representation dated September 19, 2024, for removal from the list. The respondents in the case included the State of Karnataka, represented by the Secretary of the Department of Home, as well as senior law enforcement officials from Ballari district.

The petitioner, a 37-year-old resident of Kuriganuru village in Siruguppa Taluk, Ballari district, contended that his inclusion in the rowdy register was unwarranted. He submitted that he had been acquitted in two criminal cases and that in the third case, no witnesses had come forward to testify. Despite this, the police authorities continued to maintain his name in the rowdy list, which had serious repercussions on his personal and professional life.

The petitioner’s counsel, Sri B.C. Jnanayya Swami, argued that the petitioner’s name had been added to the rowdy register arbitrarily and in violation of legal guidelines governing such actions. He cited a previous decision of the Karnataka High Court in B S Prakash v. State of Karnataka (W.P. No. 4504/2021), which established procedural safeguards for adding and removing individuals from rowdy registers. He contended that, as per the precedent, the police authorities were required to conduct a detailed review before registering an individual as a rowdy and to undertake periodic reviews for the removal of names from the list.

The counsel submitted that the petitioner had duly filed a representation on September 19, 2024, requesting that his name be deleted from the rowdy register in light of his acquittal. However, this representation had not been considered by the police, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.

The state’s counsel, Sri Sharad V. Magadum, defending the police action, argued that the petitioner’s name had been included in the rowdy register based on his involvement in multiple criminal cases. The authorities justified their decision by contending that the petitioner had a history of legal infractions, which warranted continued surveillance. However, the court noted that despite these arguments, the petitioner had been acquitted in two of the cases, and in the third, there were evidentiary difficulties, which weakened the justification for his continued inclusion in the rowdy register.

The court examined the procedural requirements for maintaining a rowdy register and referred to the guidelines laid down in B S Prakash v. State of Karnataka. The judgment observed:

"The petitioner after the said acquittal submits representation to the competent authority, seeking removal of his name from the list of rowdies maintained before the 4th respondent-Police Station. The representation having gone unheeded, the petitioner is at the doors of this Court."

The court observed that authorities must follow a structured process before adding a person’s name to a rowdy register. It cited the legal principle that requires law enforcement officials to collect and review material evidence before registering a person as a rowdy and to issue a notice allowing the individual to respond. The Karnataka Police Manual also mandates a periodic review of the rowdy register every two years, with provisions allowing individuals to seek removal based on changed circumstances.

The judgment further recorded:

"The reason for such drawal is the involvement of the petitioner in three crimes, two of which, he stands acquitted today. After such acquittal, submits a representation for removal of his name from the list of rowdies. The same is yet to be considered."

The court held the need for compliance with legal procedures:

"In the light of the issue already answered by the Coordinate Bench, the representation of the petitioner should have met its consideration in terms of the law as laid down by the Coordinate Bench."

Additionally, the judgment stated the procedural lapses in the case:

"What is pending against the petitioner are civil suits as well as criminal cases, and there is no warrant to add the name of the petitioner in the list of rowdies."

After examining the facts and legal principles, the Karnataka High Court issued the following directions:

"In that light, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order with regard to the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench in B S Prakash and pass necessary orders in accordance with law."

The court quashed the previous order dated September 19, 2024, which had refused to entertain the petitioner’s request. It directed the Superintendent of Police, Ballari, to evaluate the petitioner’s representation and make a decision in line with the established legal framework.

Case Title: Chandrashekar K. v. State of Karnataka
Case Number: W.P. No. 100579 of 2025
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna

[Read/Download order]