Judgments

KHARAK SINGH VS STATE OF U.P. : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court held in Kharak Singh Vs State of U.P. (1964) 1 SCR 332 that right to “move” denotes nothing more than a right of locomotion and that in the context the adverb “freely” would only connote that the freedom to move is without restriction and is absolute.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Petitioner was challaned in case of dacoity but was released as there was no evidence against him. Police used to maintain two types of history sheets – (i) Class A for dacoits, burglars, cattle thieves, and railway goods wagon thieves and (ii) Class B for those who are confirmed and professional criminals who commit crimes other than dacoity, burglary.  History sheet of the Petitioner  had been opened in the category of  class A.

Frequently the chaukidar of the village and sometimes police constables entered his house, knocked and shouted at his door, woke him up during the night and thereby disturbed his sleep. When the Petitioner left his village he had to inform the same to the police station. Police station of his destination was contacted and there also he was kept under surveillance.

The Petitioner filed Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court.

FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether “surveillance” under the impugned chapter XX of  UP Police Regulations constituted an infringement of Fundamental Rights of citizens.

It was contended by State that the impugned regulations did not constitute an infringement of any of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. Even if they infringe, they were reasonable restrictions.

Regulation 236 provided for secret picketing of the house or approaching to the house of suspects; domiciliary visits at night; periodical inquires by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector into repute, habits, associations, incomes, expenses and occupation; the reporting by constables and chaukidars of movements and absence from home; the verification of movements and absences by means of inquiry slips; and  the collection and record on history -sheet of  all information bearing on conduct.

It was contended by the Petitioner that aforesaid regulation was in violation of Article 19 (1) (d) , which provides for right to move freely throughout territory of India  and Article 21.

The Supreme Court observed that secret picketing of houses of the suspects is to ascertain the identity of the person or persons who visit the house of the suspect, so that the police might have a record of the nature of the activities in which the suspect is engaged. It does not infringe Article 19 (1) (d) or Article 21.

The Supreme Court held that intrusion into residence of a citizen and knocking at this door at night causing disturbance to his sleep and comfort does not violate right to move freely under Article 19 (1) (d). Right to “move” denotes nothing more than a right of locomotion and that in the context the adverb “freely” would only connote that the freedom to move is without restriction and is absolute i.e. to move wherever one likes, whenever one likes and however one likes subject to any valid law enacted or made under clause 5. By knock at the door or by the man being aroused from his sleep his locomotion is not impeded or prejudiced in any manner.

But Supreme Court held that knocking at the door violates right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 as unauthorized intrusion into a person’s home and the disturbance caused to him is in violation of a common law right of a man – an ultimate essential of ordered liberty, if not very concept of civilization.

It was contended by the Petitioner that shadowing of a person obstructed his free movement or in any event was an impediment to his free movement within Article 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution. The argument that freedom postulated under Article 19 (1) (d) was not confined to a mere physical restraint hampering movement but that the term “freely” used in the Article connoted a wider freedom transcending mere physical restraints and included psychological inhibitions was rejected by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that Article 19 (1) (d) is not infringed by a watch being kept over the movements of the suspect.

The Supreme Court also observed that right of privacy has not been guaranteed under the Constitution. Subsequently in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1  the Supreme Court has held that right to privacy is implicit under Article 21.

The Supreme Court struck down domiciliary visits as constitutional.

__________________________________________________________

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *