Facts

The Petitioner, Kharak Singh, was discharged from a dacoity inquiry due to a lack of evidence, but the Uttar Pradesh Police Department opened a 'history sheet' against him under Chapter 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations. Individuals who were habitual criminals or were suspected of becoming habitual criminals were subjected to surveillance under these regulations. The police used Regulation 236 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations to conduct surveillance, which included hidden picketing of Petitioner's home, overnight domiciliary visits, occasional officer questions, and tracking and verification of his activities. The Petitioner argued that Chapter 20 of the U.P Police Regulations, which enabled police officers to perform this type of surveillance on him, was unconstitutional.

Issue

This petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution[1], challenges the constitutional validity of Chapter XX of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, as well as the powers conferred on police officials by its various provisions, on the grounds that they infringe on citizens' rights guaranteed by Articles 19(1)(d)[2] and 21[3] of the Constitution

Arguments

The Petitioner claimed that all of Regulation 236's sections infringed on his constitutional rights to "travel freely within the territory of India" (Article 19(1)(d)) and "personal liberty" (Article 21). He claimed that shadowing a person impeded his "free mobility" and could lead to psychological inhibitions.

The Respondent-State maintained that the Regulations were not illegal since no fundamental rights were violated. They argued that, even though the Regulations did infringe fundamental rights, they were framed "in the general public and public order" and allowed the police to fulfil their tasks efficiently, therefore they qualified as "reasonable restrictions" on fundamental rights.

Judgement

Previous monitoring articles of Regulation 236 were upheld by the Court on the grounds that the right to privacy was not protected by the Constitution, and that other police operations observing the Petitioner's movements could not be claimed to place a physical constraint on his rights under Article 19. In the minority opinion, the right to privacy was recognised as an important component of personal liberty under Article 21. It also took into account the psychological effects of persistent surveillance on the individual being watched, and declared the entire Regulation illegal.

Analysis

The Court looked at the validity of all of Regulation 236's clauses. The Court ruled that keeping a close eye on a suspect and secretly recording their activities did not obstruct mobility in physical terms, and that a psychological barrier to action was not protected by Article 19(1). (d). Furthermore, it did not violate the suspect's 'personal liberty' as defined by Article 21.

The Court furthermore examined the correlation between the 'liberties' in Articles 19(1) and 21, concluding that while Article 19(1) dealt with specific species or attributes of freedom, "the term 'personal liberty' is used as a compendious term in Art. 21 as a compendious term," which took in and comprised the remainder. It was noted that the term 'personal liberty' is intended to support the constitutional goal of assuring the dignity of the individual, as stated in the Constitution's Preamble. Based on the foregoing, the Court determined that clause (b) violated Article 21 and invalidated Regulation 236(b), which permitted domiciliary visits. The rest of Chapter 20 of the U.P. Police Regulations, however, was upheld, as attempts to monitor an individual's movements simply disturbed his private, and that "the right to privacy is not a protected right under our Constitution."

Another essential point to consider in this situation is that art.21 is not a fundamental right which might be claimed by ordinary people. This is an essential right for a comfortable and peaceful life. As a result, this right cannot be denied to ordinary people who do not fall into an exemption category, as stated in India's constitution.

Conclusion

This decision is not in accordance with the law or the constitution. In this instance, the laws are not appropriately interrupted. A citizen's fundamental right to move freely and enjoy the right to privacy is guaranteed under the Indian constitution.

Although the class-A and class-B persons stated in rule 228 of the police regulation may be granted an exception, depriving all citizens of their right to privacy and freedom of movement as a fundamental right is not acceptable.

According to the constitution, every person born in this country has the right to exercise his or her fundamental rights. If this is not properly communicated to citizens, it is in violation of the constitution. According to the facts and conditions of the facts, the judgement is only reasonable and not appropriate.

So, while the judgement mentioned in this case is acceptable and reasonable to some extent, it is not appropriate when considered in all aspects.

As a result, the decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India[4] has overruled this one.

For Original Copy of Judgement, Click Here

[1] Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part

Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2)

The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution

[2] to move freely throughout the territory of India

[3] Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law

[4] https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/35071/35071_2012_Judgement_24-Aug-2017.pdf


About the Author: This Case Brief is prepared by Ms. Vidhi Agrawal, law student at Jagran Lakecity University. She can be reached at vidhiagrawal2018@gmail.com 

MyLawman is now on Telegram (t.me/mylawman) Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter or join our whats app group .You can also subscribe for our Newsletter for Email Updates. 

 For More Case Briefs, Click Here