Kerala HC : Once A Rowdy Not Always A Rowdy | Orders Removal Of Name From Rowdy List | Upholds Reformative Justice And Privacy Dignity
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan directed the removal of a petitioner’s name and photograph from the rowdy list gallery maintained at Fort Kochi Police Station. The court quashed the earlier order issued by the police authorities that retained the petitioner’s details in the surveillance register, despite his non-involvement in any criminal activity for the past eight years. stating the principle of reformative justice, the court allowed the writ petition and instructed the police to eliminate the petitioner’s entry from the rowdy history sheet within two weeks from the receipt of the judgment.
The decision came in response to the petitioner’s claim that the continued exhibition of his name and photograph caused mental agony, social stigma, and hindered his personal life, especially his marriage prospects. The court noted that the petitioner had been acquitted in nearly all previously registered criminal cases and had not been implicated in any subsequent offenses since 2017.
By allowing the petition and setting aside the impugned police order, the High Court affirmed that reformation is a central tenet of India’s criminal jurisprudence. It asserted that surveillance measures should be based on current behaviour and not on obsolete criminal history.
The petitioner, aged 40, residing in Fort Kochi, filed a writ petition seeking the removal of his name and photograph from the rowdy list gallery of Fort Kochi Police Station. He submitted that he hails from a middle-class Christian family and has not been involved in any criminal case for the last eight years. The petitioner stated that he had previously been associated with criminal cases due to negative peer influence but had reformed over time.
The petitioner claimed he is now living a peaceful life, working as a supervisor under his eldest brother, a building contractor, and actively participating in religious activities. He also stated that he is looking after his aged mother and is in the process of settling down with support from his family. His grievance arose from the display of his photograph and name in the rowdy list gallery at the Fort Kochi Police Station.
According to the petitioner, his image being publicly exhibited caused social humiliation and mental distress. He contended that such publication adversely affected his family life, especially his marriage prospects. He stated that no criminal case had been registered against him within the jurisdiction of Fort Kochi Police Station or elsewhere in the past eight years.
In pursuit of relief, the petitioner filed a representation (Ext.P1) before the City Police Commissioner. Upon non-response, he approached the High Court through W.P.(C) No. 21176/2024. The Court directed the first respondent to consider and dispose of the representation after hearing the petitioner (Ext.P3). Following this, a hearing was conducted by the first respondent, resulting in an order (Ext.P4) rejecting the request for removal, citing the petitioner's involvement in 18 criminal cases.
The petitioner countered that he had been acquitted in 16 out of the 18 cases and provided a copy of the order (Ext.P5) quashing one of the remaining cases. The only pending matter was Crime No. 1408/2016, where the petitioner was the 8th accused among 15, and was currently out on bail.
The petitioner asserted that despite the previous charges, none were registered in Fort Kochi, where he had resided his entire life. He stated his current law-abiding status and contended that displaying his name and photograph was unnecessary and disproportionate, especially when police could still monitor his activities without public display.
The respondents, through the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the petitioner was involved in several serious offenses between 2004 and 2017, including charges under Sections 397, 307, 308, 395, 363, and 365 IPC, as well as violations under the Arms Act and the Kerala Abkari Act. It was contended that the petitioner remained under surveillance due to past conduct and associations with suspected criminals in the real estate sector.
It was submitted that the surveillance was to deter him from engaging in further offenses, and displaying his image was considered necessary for internal police use. A statement filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police stated that such images are shown only in secure areas within the police station, not accessible to the public, and are meant to aid police officers in identifying habitual offenders.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed, "Once a rowdy, need not always be a rowdy." He acknowledged the petitioner's criminal history but noted, "It is a fact that about 16 criminal cases are registered against the petitioner, and some of them are registered with serious offences. But it is conceded by the prosecution that in almost all the cases, he is acquitted, except in one case in which the petitioner is the 8th accused."
The Court further recorded, "It is also an admitted fact that the last case registered against the petitioner was on 21.06.2017, and he was acquitted in that case on 26.10.2018. Thereafter, no case is registered against the petitioner in any of the police stations in the Ernakulam District."
The Court stressed the importance of reformation in criminal jurisprudence: "Our criminal justice delivery system is not punitive alone, but reformation is the main goal in Indian criminal jurisprudence." It elaborated on socio-economic factors contributing to criminal conduct: "Economic hardship can drive individuals to crime... Dysfunctional family environments or a lack of parental guidance can contribute to criminal tendencies."
The judgment also referenced societal responsibilities: "An environment in which society continues to blame criminals simply because of their past history should be avoided." The Court invoked mythological and real-life examples to state the potential for transformation, including Valmiki and "Ripper" Jayanandan.
It noted, "A person is not born as a criminal. The society and all of us create criminals because of certain situations which should be avoided." The Judge stated, "If the person is coming with a genuine claim that he is on the reformative pathway, the court cannot ignore the same."
Referring to the police's statement, the Court clarified the misconception regarding public exhibition: "The photographs are displayed within the police station premises in a secure area accessible only to police personnel, ensuring confidentiality and preventing public exposure." It affirmed that there was no violation of privacy rights in such procedures.
Nonetheless, considering the petitioner’s reformed conduct, the Court found the continued listing unjustified: "I am of the opinion that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to reform himself... I am taking his words and his conduct for the last 8 years as a ground to remove his name from the rowdy history list."
The Court issued the following directions:
"Ext.P4 is set aside."
"The respondents are directed to remove the photograph and the name of the petitioner from the rowdy list gallery of Fort Kochi Police Station and should also remove the Rowdy history sheet opened with the name of the petitioner in the Fort Kochi Police Station within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Shabu Sreedharan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri. P. Narayanan, Senior Public Prosecutor; Shri. Sajju S., Senior Government Pleader
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:46085
Case Number: W.P.(C). No. 16614 of 2025
Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan
