Karnataka High Court
Sri.Vasantharaju @ Vasu vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:23653
WP No. 13478 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 13478 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.VASANTHARAJU @ VASU
SON OF LATE THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.10
1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS
NEAR GARDEN SCHOOL
KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR
T.DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 057.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: FAYAZ SAB B G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
CHAITHRA A REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
Location: DEPARTMENT OF HOME
HIGH VIDHANA SOUDHA
COURT OF BENGALURU-560 001.
KARNATAKA
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
POLICE BHAVANA, B.M.ROAD
RAMANGARA-562 159
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT.
3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
MAGADI SUB DIVISION
TAVAREKERE-562 130
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:23653
WP No. 13478 of 2026
HC-KAR
4. POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
KUDUR POLICE STATION
MAGADI SUB DIVISION
TAVAREKERE-562 130
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: K P YOGANNA, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE THIRD
AND FOURTH RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 14.04.2026 WHICH PRODUCED AND
MARKED AS ANNEXURE-H WHEREIN REQUESTED TO REMOVE/
DELETE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FROM ROWDY
REGISTER (ROWDY CATEFORY-A) ALLEGED TO BE OPENED BY
THE R3 AND ETC.,
THIS WP, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner in the captioned petition is seeking a mandamus in the nature of direction against respondent No.3 to consider his representation dated 14.01.2026 as per Annexure - H, and pass appropriate orders.
2. Heard petitioner's counsel and learned AGA for the respondents.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:23653 WP No. 13478 of 2026 HC-KAR
3. The short point that needs to be considered is as to whether respondent No.3 can include petitioner's name in the rowdy sheet pursuant to show cause notice issued at Annexure
-G dated 05.11.2025. The issue relating to inclusion or deletion of a rowdy sheeter from the rowdy register is dealt by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in a reported judgment rendered in the case of B S Prakash Vs The State of Karnataka and Others [Writ Petition No.4504 of 2021 and connected cases disposed off on 22.04.2022]. This Court has laid down following guidelines which are extracted as under:
"i. Before entering the name of an individual to the Register of Rowdies, the jurisdictional police shall collect and collate the material information concerning him and frame the proposal for registration on that basis.
ii. A brief proposal notice shall be sent to the individual concerned in a sealed cover with an option to submit his representation within two weeks as to why his name should not be registered as a rowdy. However, there is no need to afford a personal hearing. In exceptional cases notice may be dispensed with for reasons to be recorded in the Register of Rowdies.
iii. In terms of Clause (5), Order 1059 of the Manual, the Superintendent of Police or the Sub - Divisional Police Officer shall not accord approval for entering the name of individual concerned to the Register of Rowdies without calling for records and objectively considering the same. He shall briefly record his reasons for according the approval and mark a copy thereof to the individual forthwith, with a mention that -4- NC: 2026:KHC:23653 WP No. 13478 of 2026 HC-KAR he may petition the Police Complaints Authority, against the same.
iv. The jurisdictional Police shall compulsorily once in two years, undertake a periodic review of entries in the Register of Rowdies suo motu, as provided under Clause (2), Order 1057 of the Manual. However, it is open to the aggrieved, to make a representation at any time after one year of registration, seeking deletion of name from the Rowdy Register on the basis of changed circumstances such as rectitude, good conduct, social/community service, etc. v. The representation for review shall be considered by the jurisdictional Police at the initial level within a period of 30 days, during which necessary inputs may be obtained through the available sources as to merits of the claim. The recommendation shall be sent to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police or the Sub - Divisional Police Officer, within 15 days along with the representation & the material collected thereon. Such recommendation along with the result of consideration of the representation shall be communicated to the individual concerned within next 15 days.
vi. Any individual aggrieved by the rejection of his representation or continuation of his name in the Register may petition to the Police Complaints Authority ordinarily within 30 days. However, no personal hearing shall avail. The petition shall be disposed off by recording reasons within an outer limit of 60 days, after considering the material on record or the fresh inputs that may be requisitioned, by the authority.
vii. The entire process of Rowdy/History Sheeting from the stage of issuance of proposal notice as specified above, up to the issuance of the orders on the petition if any to the Police Complaints Authority, shall be done only in a sealed cover procedure and that nothing therein shall be disclosed nor made available to anyone, except to the aggrieved, nor any Right To Information (RTI) application shall be entertained in this regard.-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:23653 WP No. 13478 of 2026 HC-KAR viii. The violation of these guidelines shall constitute a major misconduct and an adverse entry on proof thereof shall be made by the Disciplinary Authority in the Service Register of the erring official after hearing him and a copy thereof shall be marked to the victim of Rowdy Register/History Sheet, without brooking any delay.
ix. Whatever guidelines herein above laid down shall be applicable to the case of History Sheeters as well, mutatis mutandis and subject to the provisions of Karnataka Police Manual, 1965."
4. This Court has carefully examined the guidelines laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in B S Prakash (supra), which unmistakably delineate the procedural safeguards and substantive checks that are required to be adhered to before and after inclusion of an individual's name in the Rowdy Register. The said guidelines cast a mandatory obligation on the jurisdictional police to act with circumspection, fairness, and objectivity, ensuring that the drastic consequence of branding an individual as a "rowdy sheeter" is not resorted to in a mechanical or arbitrary manner. In particular, the requirement of issuance of a proposal notice, consideration of representation, recording of reasons, and periodic review are not empty formalities, but are integral to safeguarding the individual's reputation and personal liberty. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC:23653 WP No. 13478 of 2026 HC-KAR
5. In the light of these binding principles, this Court is of the considered view that respondent No.3, having initiated proceedings by issuance of show cause notice at Annexure-G, is under a legal obligation to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation at Annexure-H strictly in consonance with the aforesaid guidelines. Any deviation therefrom would vitiate the decision-making process and render the action susceptible to judicial interference.
6. The petitioner has specifically contended that there is only one criminal case pending against him and that the said case itself arises out of a dispute which is predominantly civil in nature. It is his categorical assertion that the criminal proceedings are an offshoot of a civil dispute pending before the competent Civil Court, and that except the said solitary case, there are no antecedents or materials which would justify his classification as a "rowdy sheeter."
7. This Court finds prima facie substance in the contention of the petitioner. The very object of maintaining a Rowdy Register is to keep surveillance on habitual offenders whose activities pose a threat to public peace and order. The -7- NC: 2026:KHC:23653 WP No. 13478 of 2026 HC-KAR inclusion of a person's name cannot be justified on the basis of a solitary case, particularly when such case is alleged to have emanated from a civil dispute and lacks the element of habituality or threat to society at large. If such mechanical inclusion is permitted, it would amount to misuse of police powers and unwarranted stigmatization of individuals, which is impermissible in law.
8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the present case warrants interference, at least to the extent of directing the competent authority to reconsider the matter in accordance with law, bearing in mind the nature of allegations, the absence of multiple criminal antecedents, and the safeguards mandated by the Co-ordinate Bench.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Writ Petition is hereby allowed.
ii) Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.01.2026 (Annexure-H) and -8- NC: 2026:KHC:23653 WP No. 13478 of 2026 HC-KAR pass a reasoned order strictly in compliance with the guidelines laid down by this Court in B S Prakash (supra).
iii) While undertaking such consideration, respondent No.3 shall meticulously advert to the parameters and procedural safeguards enumerated in the said judgment, particularly with regard to objective assessment of material, nature of allegations, and necessity of inclusion in the Rowdy Register.
iv) The exercise shall be completed within an outer limit of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
v) Till such consideration is undertaken and a decision is rendered, no precipitative action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned show cause notice at Annexure-G. Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE BGN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15