Background of the Case
The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, has ruled that a Police Sub-Inspector has no independent authority to issue a notice intimating that a rowdy sheet would be opened against an individual. The Court clarified that such action requires the prior approval of the Superintendent of Police (SP) or the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), authorised in accordance with law, under Order No. 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual.
The ruling came in a writ petition filed by Manjunath Krishnappa Dalawai, a 39-year-old agriculturist from Bagalkot, challenging a communication issued by the Sub-Inspector of Navanagar Police Station on June 10, 2026.
The communication informed him that a rowdy sheet would be opened against him on the ground that he was involved in two criminal cases registered at the police station.
Criminal Cases Arising From Pending Civil Disputes
The petitioner was named as an accused in Crime No. 73/2026, registered for offences under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 337 and 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
He was also named in Crime No. 74/2026, registered under Sections 132 and 262 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
According to the petitioner, both criminal cases arose out of disputes connected with civil litigation pending before the competent civil courts in O.S. Nos. 111/2017 and 208/2025.
He contended that merely being named in two criminal cases could not justify the initiation of rowdy-sheet proceedings, particularly when the underlying disputes arose from pending civil litigation.
The petitioner further argued that although the communication was styled as a notice, its contents clearly indicated that the police had already decided to open a rowdy sheet against him.
Petitioner's Reliance on Earlier Karnataka High Court Judgment
The petitioner relied upon the decision of a coordinate Bench of the Karnataka High Court in B.S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka, decided on April 22, 2022, in Writ Petition No. 4504/2021 along with connected matters.
The said decision had laid down procedural safeguards and guidelines governing the opening and maintenance of rowdy sheets and history sheets.
Relying on these guidelines, the petitioner submitted that the impugned communication was contrary to the procedure prescribed by the High Court and the Karnataka Police Manual.
State Government's Contention
Opposing the petition, the State Government, represented by the High Court Government Pleader, argued that the communication was merely a notice and not a final decision to open a rowdy sheet.
It was submitted that the petitioner should first submit his explanation to the Sub-Inspector and that an appropriate decision would be taken thereafter.
Accordingly, the State contended that the petitioner had no justification for approaching the High Court at that stage.
High Court's Examination of the Impugned Communication
Justice M.G.S. Kamal examined the contents of the communication issued by the Sub-Inspector and rejected the State's contention that it was merely a show-cause notice.
The Court found that the communication did not genuinely call upon the petitioner to explain why a rowdy sheet should not be opened against him. Instead, it conveyed that the police had already considered the opening of a rowdy sheet necessary and that such action would be taken against him.
The Court also expressed concern over the increasing instances of Sub-Inspectors issuing similar communications threatening to open rowdy sheets against individuals involved in one or two criminal cases.
It observed that many such cases arose out of private family property disputes and matrimonial disputes.
The Court considered the present matter to be one such instance where the police had issued a communication threatening rowdy-sheet proceedings without following the prescribed procedure.
Order No. 1059 of Karnataka Police Manual
The High Court examined Order No. 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, which regulates the opening and maintenance of the Register of Rowdies.
The provision defines a rowdy as a goonda and includes a hooligan, tough, vagabond or any person considered dangerous to public peace and tranquillity.
It identifies various forms of rowdyism, including intimidation through violence or abusive language, forcible collection of subscriptions, disorderly conduct, rioting and robbery.
The provision also regulates the maintenance of the Register of Rowdies, which is divided into three parts:
Part A contains the particulars of confirmed rowdies residing within the jurisdiction of the concerned police station.
Part B contains the particulars of confirmed rowdies operating within the jurisdiction but residing elsewhere, as well as homeless confirmed rowdies.
Part C contains the particulars of novices or individuals considered to be budding goondas.
The Court particularly relied upon Clause (5) of Order No. 1059, which expressly requires prior orders of the Superintendent of Police or the Sub-Divisional Police Officer before the name of any individual is entered in the Register of Rowdies.
Consequently, the authority to approve the opening of a rowdy sheet cannot be independently exercised by a Sub-Inspector.
Sub-Inspector Cannot Independently Open a Rowdy Sheet
The Court clarified the distinction between the authority responsible for approving the opening of a rowdy sheet and the police officers responsible for making the corresponding entries in the register.
It observed that the competent superior police officer must grant prior approval, while the jurisdictional Police Inspector or the officer in charge of the police station may enter the individual's name in the register after obtaining such approval.
A Sub-Inspector cannot independently exercise this power.
The Court observed:
"The officer who is empowered to open and maintain, history/rowdy sheet is Superior Police officer of the rank of Superintendent of police or Sub-divisional police. The jurisdictional Police Inspector or the officer in-charge of the police station shall with the prior orders of Superintendent of police or Sub-divisional Police Officer enter name of Rowdy in the Register of Rowdies. A Sub-Inspector or Police cannot on his own open a Rowdy sheet."
B.S. Prakash Guidelines Require Prior Consideration by Superior Officers
The High Court also examined the guidelines laid down in B.S. Prakash v. State of Karnataka, which prescribe the procedure to be followed before an individual's name is entered in the Register of Rowdies.
The guidelines require the jurisdictional police to collect and collate relevant information before preparing a proposal for registration.
A brief proposal notice must ordinarily be served on the concerned individual in a sealed cover, providing an opportunity to submit a representation within two weeks explaining why his name should not be entered in the register. A personal hearing is not mandatory.
However, the guidelines also place an important responsibility on the Superintendent of Police or the Sub-Divisional Police Officer.
Before approving the entry, the superior officer must call for the relevant records, objectively examine the material and briefly record reasons for granting approval. A copy of the decision must also be communicated to the concerned individual, informing him of his right to approach the Police Complaints Authority.
The guidelines further provide for periodic review of rowdy-sheet entries, consideration of representations seeking deletion of names, and an opportunity to challenge the continuation of such entries before the Police Complaints Authority.
Notice Requirement Cannot Override the Approval Mechanism
The Court explained that Order No. 1059 itself does not expressly prescribe the issuance of a prior notice before opening a rowdy sheet.
However, the coordinate Bench in B.S. Prakash had introduced the requirement of a proposal notice as an additional safeguard to protect citizens against possible police excesses.
Justice Kamal emphasised that the requirement of issuing a proposal notice under the second guideline cannot be read independently of the third guideline, which requires the superior officer to examine the records and record reasons before granting approval.
The Court found that the police had misinterpreted the earlier guidelines. Sub-Inspectors had begun issuing notices to individuals whom they considered deserving of being entered in the Register of Rowdies, without establishing that prior approval had been obtained from the competent superior officer.
It clarified that the proposal notice is intended to provide an opportunity for representation and cannot be treated as an independent source of authority for a Sub-Inspector to initiate or decide rowdy-sheet proceedings.
Notice Must Be Issued by SP or Authorised SDPO
Rejecting the procedure followed by the police, the High Court categorically held that even a proposal notice for opening a rowdy sheet must be issued by the Superintendent of Police or an authorised Sub-Divisional Police Officer, or under his prior orders.
The Court observed:
"Therefore, Sub-Inspector has no power or authority to issue a notice intimating opening of the Rowdy Sheet as sought to be done in the instant case."
It further clarified that such power cannot be exercised by an officer below the rank of Superintendent of Police or the authorised Sub-Divisional Police Officer.
The Court specifically directed that any notice proposing the opening of a rowdy sheet must be issued only by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police or by a Sub-Divisional Police Officer authorised in accordance with law.
High Court Directs State Government to Issue Circular
In view of the recurring instances of Sub-Inspectors issuing such communications, the High Court directed the State Government to issue necessary instructions or a circular to all concerned police stations.
It also directed that the guidelines laid down in B.S. Prakash be read and implemented in accordance with the interpretation provided in the present order.
Allowing the writ petition, the Court quashed the impugned communication dated June 10, 2026, issued by the Sub-Inspector of Navanagar Police Station.
A copy of the order was directed to be forwarded to the State Government for necessary action and compliance.
Relevant Judicial Extract
The following observations of the Karnataka High Court clarify the legal position:
"Though there is no express provision under Order No.1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual providing for issuance of prior notice, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid guideline No.ii has directed for issuance of a brief proposal notice which is an additional safeguard in the protection of rights of citizenry against the excess of Police. The said guidelines of issuance of notice has to be read along with guideline No.iii which is in consonance with the object, purport and rigour of Clause (5) of the Order No.1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual."
The Court further held:
"It is made clear that notice for opening a Rowdy sheet, if any, shall be issued only by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police or a Sub-Divisional Police Officer authorised in accordance with law."
Case Details
Case Name: Manjunath Krishnappa Dalawai v. State of Karnataka & Others
Court: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date of Decision: October 17, 2026
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 106261 of 2026 (GM-POLICE)
Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-D:17446
Coram: Justice M.G.S. Kamal
