In a landmark judgment delivered on 23 June 2025, the Kerala High Court, through Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, posed a compelling moral and legal question: “Once a rowdy, always a rowdy?” This question lay at the heart of Nixon v. The City Police Commissioner, a case that serves not just as a judicial decision but as a philosophical discourse on criminal reform and society’s role in facilitating it. By invoking the transformation of Sage Valmiki—from a feared forest bandit to the author of the Ramayana—the court underscored that the Indian legal system must embrace reformation as a central goal of justice.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Nixon, a 40-year-old man from a middle-class Christian family in Fort Kochi, had a troubled past. He was once embroiled in multiple criminal cases, allegedly influenced by the company he kept in his younger years. However, Nixon claimed to have turned over a new leaf—no criminal case had been registered against him for over eight years, and he now led a life of integrity, devotion, and responsibility, even working as a building supervisor for his elder brother and caring for his elderly mother.
Despite this, his photograph continued to be displayed in the rowdy list gallery of the Fort Kochi Police Station. Nixon argued that this branding violated his right to privacy, caused severe mental agony, and hampered his prospects of rehabilitation, including his ability to find a marriage partner. After his representation to the police was rejected (Ext.P4), he moved the High Court seeking the removal of his name and photograph from the rowdy history sheet.
Issues Raised
The Court dealt with two critical issues:
- Whether a person once branded as a rowdy should remain under such surveillance permanently.
- Whether the exhibition of his photograph in the police station violates his privacy and hinders reformation.
Arguments by the Petitioner
Nixon, through counsel, submitted:
- He had been acquitted in 16 of 18 criminal cases. The remaining two included one that was quashed, and the other was still pending.
- No fresh FIR had been filed against him in eight years.
- He had changed his lifestyle significantly, engaged in legitimate employment, regularly attended church, and distanced himself from criminal elements.
- Continued exhibition of his image as a rowdy constituted character assassination and defamation, and contradicted the principle of reformation under Indian criminal law.
Response from the State
The Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, arguing:
- Nixon had a serious criminal past involving charges under IPC Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 395 (dacoity), 397 (robbery), and Arms Act and Abkari Act provisions.
- He continued to associate with criminal elements through his work in real estate.
- His photograph helped familiarise police personnel and was displayed in a confidential area of the police station, not accessible to the public.
- The risk of relapse remained; hence, surveillance was justified.
Observations by the Court
Justice Kunhikrishnan offered a profound reflection on criminal reformation:
“…..Every citizen has a duty to see that criminals are going on a reformatory pathway.”
- Rehabilitation over Retribution: The court stressed that Indian criminal jurisprudence is reformative, not merely punitive.
- Valmiki Analogy: The Judge invoked the example of Sage Valmiki, a former robber who turned into a sage after self-realisation, to underline that transformation is possible, even for those with grim pasts.
- Criminal Circumstances: Economic hardship, poor education, broken families, and mental health issues were cited as root causes of criminal behaviour, not inherent criminality.
- Reformation Indicators: Nixon’s clean record for 8 years, his church attendance, work with his brother, and family life all suggested genuine rehabilitation.
- Privacy Consideration: The court clarified that rowdy sheets are for internal police use and should not be displayed publicly, debunking popular myths often portrayed in movies.
Verdict
The Court:
- Set aside the rejection order (Ext.P4) issued by the City Police Commissioner.
- Directed removal of Nixon’s name and photograph from the rowdy list gallery and surveillance record within two weeks.
- Recognised the petitioner’s right to live with dignity and pursue a fresh start.
Key Highlights of the Judgment
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan poignantly reminded:
……..As per the Hindu purana, ‘Ramayanam’ was written by Valmiki. Valmiki, one of the most revered sages in Hindu mythology, was originally a forest dweller who lived a life of crime, by robbing travellers in the forest to support his family. The puranic story says that, after he met the ‘Saptarishis’ (Seven sages) and heard their words, he reformed and thereafter wrote the great epic ‘Ramayana’. It cannot be said that a criminal will always be a criminal and a rowdy will always be a rowdy.
If the person is coming with a genuine claim that he is on the reformative pathway, the court cannot ignore the same. This Court perused the statement filed by the police and also the contention of the Public Prosecutor. The police officers will be apprehending danger to society from criminals. Their intention is only to see that there are no further criminal activities from such criminals. A perusal of the statement would not show that there is any malafide intention on the part of the police in including the petitioner in surveillance.
……..It is an admitted fact that, for the last 8 years, the petitioner has not been involved in any criminal offences. I am taking his words and his conduct for the last 8 years as a ground to remove his name from the rowdy history list.
Implications of the Judgment
1. Recognition of Reformed Individuals
This judgment acknowledges that rehabilitation is real and must be reflected in administrative records, not just rhetoric.
2. Upholding Article 21 Rights
By highlighting the mental trauma Nixon faced and his right to dignity, the ruling affirms the expansive interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution, including:
- Privacy
- Reputation
- Mental health
- Right to be forgotten (by implication)
3. Role of Law Enforcement
While acknowledging the bonafide intent of police surveillance, the Court held that this must be proportionate and reasonable. Law enforcement cannot justify indefinite branding without current justification.
4. Shift in Public Perception
By using Valmiki’s transformation as a moral compass, the Court encourages a societal mindset shift—away from lifelong condemnation and toward compassionate reintegration.
Comparative Note: Judicial Compassion Elsewhere
The Court also referred to another case where a convict known as “Ripper Jayanandan”, serving life imprisonment for multiple murders, was granted parole to attend the release of his book. Even in extreme cases, the judiciary has shown a willingness to foster dignity and creativity among convicts, provided there is a genuine effort at change.
Conclusion
The judgment in Nixon v. The City Police Commissioner is more than a legal decision—it is a social message. It reiterates that:
- No one should be eternally judged by their past.
- The criminal justice system must trust, not just test reformation.
- Society must open its arms to those who genuinely seek a second chance.
Justice Kunhikrishnan’s invocation of Sage Valmiki serves as a timeless reminder: the path from crime to contribution is not only possible but sacred in a just society.