A file photo of the Ulsoor Gate police station.
The High Court of Karnataka has said that the police cannot orally summon persons whose names are entered in rowdy and history registers to stations when they are not accused in any offence, till the State government evolves a procedure as per law for summoning such persons.
However, taking note that there are about 6,500 persons whose names are in the history sheet, the court made it clear that in case a rowdy-sheeter is accused of committing any offence then the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) can be invoked to secure them for investigation as BNSS empowers the police to summon an accused.
Petition by Silent Sunil
Justice R. Nataraj passed the order while partly allowing a petition filed in 2019 by Sunil Kumar alias Silent Sunil, 38, who had questioned the legality of the action of the police in frequently summoning him, making him wait unnecessarily in the police station from morning to evening in the guise of knowing his activities, parading him, along with other persons whose names are in the history sheet, before the media, etc.
Also, the court directed the police to send text message, either through short messaging service (SMS) or WhatsApp to Sunil, whose name is in the history sheet of Subramanya Nagar, Yelahanka New Town, Rajajinagar, and Amruthahalli police stations, to summon him for obtaining any information about his activities.
If the petitioner involves in any crime punishable under any enactment, then the protection granted to him by this order shall automatically vanish, the court clarified.
The court passed the order after the State government admitted that there was no provision either in the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, or the Karnataka Police Manual that prescribes the procedure for summoning a person whose name is entered in the rowdy and history register.
“…whatever might be the consequences, when there is no procedure prescribed in law to summon a rowdy-sheeter, the State cannot justify summoning them orally and detaining them in the police station for long hours as that would infringe their personal liberty” guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court said.
Give an opportunity
Taking note of a claim by the police that the petitioner was involved in 24 criminal cases like murder, dacoity etc., and his clarification that he was cleared in 22 cases, either through acquittal of quashing of the cases, and that he had reformed now and wanted to lead a dignified life with his family, the court said that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to reform, notwithstanding his past by quoting popular saying – “every saint has a past and every sinner a future”.
Published – December 10, 2025 11:19 pm IST
