The Madhya Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant affirmation of the right to reputation under Article 21 by holding that inclusion in a police-maintained 'Gunda List' without a criminal conviction constitutes an unconstitutional stigma. The judgment establishes that mere suspicion or historical association cannot justify permanent public branding of an individual as a criminal element.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sonu Dubey, sought removal of his name and photograph from the 'Gunda List' or 'History Sheet' maintained by Police Station Daboh in District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh. He alleged that his inclusion in this list, without any criminal conviction or even pending proceedings since 2014, has led to social stigma, harassment, and impediments in employment and personal life. He contended that the list operates as a de facto blacklist, denying him the presumption of innocence and violating his fundamental rights.
Procedural History
- 2025: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court at Gwalior
- No criminal proceedings: Petitioner affirmed no FIR, charge sheet, or trial has been initiated against him since 2014
- No rebuttal evidence: Respondents did not produce any material demonstrating current or recent criminal involvement
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Removal of his name and photograph from the Gunda List
- A written certificate confirming no adverse entry or criminal case exists against him
- A direction restraining authorities from publishing his name in any police register or notice board without due process
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the continued inclusion of an individual in a police 'Gunda List' without any criminal conviction or pending proceedings violates the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution, and whether such inclusion can be sustained on mere suspicion or historical association.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to argue that reputation is an integral component of personal liberty under Article 21. He emphasized that the Gunda List functions as a public stigma, akin to a civil death, and that its maintenance without judicial oversight or periodic review violates the principle of proportionality and due process. He cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to underscore that police cannot act as judge, jury, and executioner by labeling individuals as criminals without legal process.
For the Respondent
The State did not contest the petitioner’s claim of no criminal activity since 2014. The Advocate General conceded that the list is an administrative tool for surveillance but argued that its existence is necessary for law and order. However, no evidence was presented to justify the continued inclusion of the petitioner, nor was any statutory basis for the list cited.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the Gunda List and its impact on individual rights. It observed that while police may maintain internal records for intelligence purposes, public display or use of such lists to stigmatize individuals without judicial sanction is impermissible. The Court held that the presumption of innocence remains inviolate even in the absence of formal charges.
"The State cannot, under the guise of maintaining law and order, impose a permanent badge of criminality on a citizen who has never been convicted, nor even charged, of any offence. Such a practice is a violation of the dignity and liberty guaranteed under Article 21."
The Court distinguished between internal police records and public exposure. It noted that the petitioner’s name had been displayed in police station premises, effectively making it accessible to the public, thereby transforming an administrative record into a punitive instrument. The Court rejected the notion that past association, even if unproven, justifies perpetual branding. It emphasized that the burden lies on the State to justify continued inclusion, and in the absence of any evidence of criminal conduct since 2014, the petitioner’s claim must prevail.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that continued inclusion in the Gunda List without criminal conviction violates Article 21 and directed that if the petitioner submits an application to the Superintendent of Police, Bhind, and no criminal activity is established since 2014, his name and photograph must be removed from the list and all police premises.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Stigma Without Conviction Is Unconstitutional
- Practitioners must now challenge any police list that publicly labels individuals as criminals without a conviction
- Applications under Article 226 can be filed where names appear in public notice boards, circulars, or digital databases without judicial sanction
- The burden shifts to the State to prove ongoing threat or criminality to justify retention
Due Process Is Mandatory for Public Branding
- Police cannot maintain or display lists that imply criminality without a court order or statutory mandate
- Internal records may exist, but public dissemination requires procedural safeguards
- Any citizen with no criminal record for over five years may petition for removal from such lists
Historical Association Cannot Justify Perpetual Surveillance
- Past association, even if unproven, cannot be used to justify lifelong stigma
- Courts will scrutinize the duration of inactivity and absence of charges as decisive factors
- Petitioners must document their clean record and submit formal applications to Superintendent of Police for removal
