Kerala HC Cites Valmiki’s Transformation to Highlight Criminal Reformation

Nixon_v__The_City_Police_CommissionerDownload

The present ruling in W.P.(C).No.16614 of 2025 passed by Honourable Mr. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam throws some light on the basic issues about the constant tagging of people as rowdies and the posting of their photos in police stations.

This is a case that explores the plateau between the need to stop causing disturbance in society and upholding the right of an individual to his privacy and the chance to be rehabilitated.

Facts in the case

The petitioner is Nixon, a 40-year-old Christian male, a native of Fort Kochi, and his family is middle-class. His father died and his older lady mother is age-bound with illnesses. Nixon is part of a joint family and used to live with his two older brothers who are a building contractor and a shop manager. Despite him passing the 10th standard, his presence in the past cases resulted in him being involved in a couple of criminal cases.

But according to Nixon, he stopped associates with his old friends and has never had a case of crime within the last eight years. He said he lives a peaceful life, being a supervisor of the building contract business of his elder brother and taking responsibility for his mother. Constantly, he also goes to church, and is also in search of an appropriate bride.

The bone of contention by Nixon is the displaying of his photograph and name in the rowdy list gallery of the Fort Kochi Police Station. He claims that he has never recorded a crime at the said police station in all his life despite living in its area all his life. He shows that this publicly displayed image brings enormous mental torment and anguish to himself and his family and endangers his future, such as marriage.

Prior to this application, P. Nixon (Ext. P1) had made a representation to the City Police Commissioner, the 1st respondent, to have his photograph and name on the rowdy history sheet removed. Then the Commissioner failed to act, and the Commissioner went to the High Court of Kerala by submitting W.P.(C) No.21176/2024. In the Ext.P3 judgment, the court made the 1st respondent take into consideration his representation after holding a hearing on the matter.

The 1st respondent dismissed his plea, although the hearing was granted, through an Ext.P4 order, on the basis that he had been involved in 18 criminal cases. Nixon responded to this by affirming that he had been acquitted in 16 out of 18 cases as reflected in Ext.P4. Another surviving case was Crime No. 52/2007 of Ramankari Police Station which had its verdict quashed by the High Court according to Ext. P5 judgment.

A single case is under the name of Crime Number 1408/2016 of Panangad Police station waiting at C.C. No.1843/2020 in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, VIII, Ernakulam in which he is the 8th accused out of 15 accused, is in the process of being on bail and he is regularly attending the court there. He also made emphasis that no fresh criminal case has been reported against him during the last eight years in any police station in Ernakulam District.

Appeal of the petitioner and the opposition of the police.

The counsel for Nixon also claimed that his client was given eight years of a clean record, and since a human being somehow proves that he committed no crime within a very long stint of time, his request to strike his name out of the list of rogue makers should be treated favorably by the police department.

In his turn, the Public Prosecutor fundamentally disagreed with the petition, noting the participation of Nixon in serious cases between 20.06.2004 and 21.06.2017, i.e., approximately 13 years. The prosecutor also tendered that Section 397, 307, 308, 395, 363 & 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 27 of the Arms Act as well as Section 55(a) and 8(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act are some of the offences that are alleged in some of the cases.

They said that Nixon is in the real estate business now and that he continues to keep in touch with suspect individuals and those practicing criminal acts thus he needs to be watched all the time.

The prosecutor suggested that his abstention from criminal activities beyond his current stage could not be viewed completely and presenting his photograph was necessary in correlating it with the police officers in bringing them familiar with his criminal background as well as monitoring him. It was therefor submitted that the prayers in this Writ Petition cannot be entertained.

The Deliberations and the Basic Issues of the Court

The main questions underlying the case were outlined by the presiding judge P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J. as the following: Is it true that when a person has been given a so-called rowdy cap, the known cap should last up to the death of the person?

And whether the rowdy history sheet prepared by them is to familiarise those working in the police department with the criminal history of such individuals and whether it has to be put on display in the police station by compromising the privacy of the individuals or not?

The court recognized that Nixon had been in approximately 16 different criminal cases of which the notable ones were serious criminal offences but the fact is that the efforts that had been put by the prosecution were that Nixon had been acquitted in almost all the cases with the exception of one case which is still under bail, where he is the 8th accused.

More importantly, it was a known fact that he was not an offender in any criminal case at Fort Kochi, where he is a present resident and that the last case filed against him was on 21.06.2017 and he was acquitted on 26.10.2018. Since then, he has not yet registered any case against him at any of the police stations within the Ernakulam District.

The judgement pointed out that the criminal justice system in India is not only punitive but also reformation-oriented. Cause factors identified by the court in society leading to criminal activity include poverty, inability to receive good education, unemployment, poor family situations, lack of parental supervision, developing in a bad neighborhood, and psychological trauma.

It emphasized the need to focus on these root causes of crime by providing better education, employment opportunities, ensuring mental health and the integration of the community to curb crime rates and create a supportive environment for everyone including the people who have committed the crime.

The verdict also touched on the image of rowdies in society and the need that blame should never be cast continually on the wrongs of the past. It emphasizes the social responsibility of aiding people on a reformatory course.

The court gave the example of Mr. Jayanandan alias Ripper Jayanandan, a convicted man serving life imprisonment in several murder cases as an example to show the possibility of reformation when it gave him parole to attend his book release event. The court pointed out that, though he might still not be a completely reformated person, he seems to be taking in the right direction.

There was also an instance where the judgment compared the woman to Valmiki of the Hindu dictionary who was a criminal who changed into an author after robbing other travelers and writing the epic Ramayana. The given examples confirm the court’s idea that it cannot be stated that a criminal will always remain a criminal and a rowdy will always be rowdy.

On the aspect of the police argument that officers become acquainted with criminals by viewing photographs of the criminals, the court has demystified a myth. The judgment cited the words of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law & Order, Traffic) Kochi City which are dated 29.05.2025 confirming that rowdy lists and photographs are

Are not publicly displayed. Rather, they would be exhibited in the police station premises in a confidential area where only police officers have access to leave the naked individuals anonymous to the outside world. This explanation was concerned about the fact that the privacy of criminals is not being violated by these internal displays.

Directions and conclusion

Bearing in mind that over the last eight years, Nixon has shown no involvement in any criminal activity and the rehabilitative aspects incorporated into the justice system, the High Court ruled that Nixon ought to be given a chance at reform. The court held the words and actions of Nixon over the past 8 years in acceptance of his requests to be taken off the rowdy list of names, thus leaving out the fear of the police that he will indeed commit any crime in future as well due to his criminal record.

The court, the writ petition (C) was denied with the following terms set aside: Ext.P4. It has been also ordered that the respondents shall write off the photograph and name of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of provision of a certified copy of the judgment, the rowdy list gallery of Fort Kochi Police Station and also write off the rowdy history sheet opened with the name of the petitioner in the Fort Kochi Police Station.

This pronouncement is a major statement about the reformation concept in the criminal justice system. It reiterates the fact that although there may be a need to monitor individuals with past criminal records, it should not be at the expense of depriving them of an opportunity to reintegrate into the rest of society, and other law-abiding citizens.

Another point clearly apparent in the case is the internal character of the always available rowdy lists inside the police department, which removes the myth that there is a rowdy list on the wall of the police department and as such, it contributes to the privacy of those involved in police surveillance. The ruling shows how the judiciary can hold a lifelong burden, which is represented by a rowdy cap at bay especially when reform is proven to be serious by the accused.