Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.J. IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Kharak Singh, Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Petition No. 356 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
Mr. J. P. Goyal, Advocate, for Petitioner; Mr. K. S. Hajela, Senior Advocate, (Mr. C. P. Lal, Advocate, with him), for Respondents.
-held, freedom to move freely guaranteed under Article 19(1) (d) is not infringed.
- held, not a deprivation of personal liberty of suspect.
-held, it covers variety of rights. Article 19 relates to particular attributes of that freedom. Article 21 takes in and covers residue.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The right to privacy is not explicitly guaranteed as a fundamental right, and restrictions imposed by executive or departmental instructions are not considered "laws" that the state can rely on to restrict or regulate fundamental rights under Articles 19(2) to (6) of the Constitution (!) .
The constitutional validity of regulations related to police surveillance and history-sheets was challenged on grounds that they infringe upon rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement) and 21 (personal liberty) (!) (!) .
The regulations in question, particularly those authorizing surveillance measures such as secret picketing, domiciliary visits, inquiries into habits and associations, and recording on history-sheets, are executive instructions without statutory backing and therefore do not constitute "law" within the meaning of the constitutional provisions (!) .
Surveillance measures, including secret picketing and domiciliary visits, do not infringe upon the right to move freely or personal liberty because they do not involve physical restraint or confinement; instead, they are supervisory measures that do not directly impede physical movement or liberty (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The act of entering a person's residence at night or disturbing their sleep through domiciliary visits is considered an intrusion that violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21, as it infringes on the sanctity of the home and personal security (!) .
The measures of shadowing, inquiries into movements, and recording on history-sheets are viewed as surveillance that, while intrusive, do not constitute a violation of fundamental rights unless they involve unlawful or unreasonable actions not authorized by law (!) (!) .
The right to move freely under Article 19(1)(d) is not only a physical right but also includes a subjective and psychological component, which can be infringed by surveillance that creates an environment of constant monitoring and inhibits free activity (!) (!) .
The entire regulation authorizing domiciliary visits was struck down as unconstitutional because it infringed on both Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21, and it lacked statutory authority (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that fundamental rights are protected against arbitrary state actions, and even acts not authorized by law can be considered infringements if they violate constitutional guarantees (!) (!) .
The petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus to prevent the continuation of domiciliary visits under the invalidated regulation, and the respondents are ordered to pay costs (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores that surveillance and police actions must have a legal basis and cannot infringe on fundamental rights without satisfying constitutional requirements for reasonableness and legality (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
Judgment
AYYANGAR, J. (For self and B. P. Sinha, C.J.I., Imam and Mudholkar, JJ.) This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenges the constitutional validity of Ch. XX of the U. P. police Regulations and the powers conferred upon police officials by its several provisions on the ground that they violate the right guaranteed to citizens by Arts. 19 (1) (d) and 21 of the Constitution.
2. To appreciate the contention raised it is necessary to set out the facts averred on the basis of which the fundamental right of the petitioner is said to be violated, as well as the answers by the respondents-State to these allegations. The petitioner - Kharak Singh was challenged in a case of dacoity in 1941 but was released under S. 169, Criminal Procedure Code as there was no evidence against him. On the basis of the accusation made against him he states that the police have opened a "history sheet" in regard to him. Regulation 228 which occurs in Ch. XX of the Police Regulation defines "history-sheets" as "the personal records of criminals under surveillances". That regulation further directs that "history-sheets" should be opened only for persons who are or are likely to become habitual criminals or the aiders or abettors of such criminals. These history-sheets are of two classes: Class A for dacoits, burglars, cattle thieves, and railway goods-wagon thieves, and class B for those who are confirmed and professional criminals who commit crimes other than dacoity, burglary, etc. like professional cheats. It is admitted that a history-sheet in class A has been opened for the petitioner and he is therefore "under surveillance".
3. The petitioner describes the surveillance to which he has been subjected thus : Frequently the chaukidar of the village & some times police constables enter his house, knock and shout at his door, wake him up during the night and thereby disturb his sleep. On a number of occasions they have compelled him to get up form his sleep and accompany them to the police station to report his presence there. When the petitioner leaves his village for another village or town, he has to report to the chaukidar of the village or at the police station about his departure. He has to give them information regarding his destination and the period within which he would return. Immediately the police station of his destination is contacted by the police station of his departure and the former puts him under surveillance in the same way as the latter. There are other allegations made about misuse or abuse of authority by the chaukidar or the police officials but these have been denied, and we do not consider them made out for the purposes of the present petition. If the officials out- step the limits of their authority they would be violating even the instructions given to them, but it looks to us that these excesses of individual officers which are wholly unauthorised could not be complained of in a petition under Art. 32.
4. In deciding this petition we shall proceed upon the basis that the officers conformed strictly to the terms of the Regulations in Ch. XX properly construed and discard as exaggerated or not proved the incidents or pieces of conduct on the part of the authorities which are alleged in the petition but which have been denied. As already pointed out it is admitted that a history-sheet has been opened and a record as prescribed by the Regulations maintained for the petitioner and that such action as is required to be taken in respect of history-sheeters of Class A into which the petitioner fell under the classification made in Ch. XX of the police Regulations is being taken in regard to him. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the police keep a confidential watch over the movements of the petitioner as directed by the Regulations in the interest of the general public and for the maintenance of public order.
5. Before entering on the details of these regulations it is necessary to point out that the defence
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
