KHARAK SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. & Ors

Advertisements

BACKGROUND

A similar case happened in U.P, where a man was under strict surveillance due to the charges of dacoity. For which he appealed that, his freedom of speech and movement are being infringed. He also stated that Chapter XX of U.P Police Regulations Act is unconstitutional.

FACTS

Kharak Singh was released from an investigation of dacoity due to lack of evidence against him, but the U.P. Police opened a “history sheet” against him under Chapter 20 of the U.P. Police Regulations, which allowed for surveillance on individuals who were habitual criminals or were considered likely to become habitual criminals. The police conducted surveillance on Kharak Singh, which included secret picketing of his house, nightly domiciliary visits, periodic inquiries by officers, and tracking and verification of his movements.

Kharak Singh challenged the constitutionality of Chapter 20 of the U.P. Police Regulations, which allowed police officials to conduct this nature of surveillance upon him. The issue at hand is whether the surveillance conducted by the police under Regulation 236 of the U.P. Police Regulations violated Kharak Singh’s fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution, such as the right to privacy, the right to life, and personal liberty.

The right to privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but it is considered to be a part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. The Supreme Court of India has also recognized that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

In this case, the surveillance conducted by the police under Regulation 236 involved secret picketing of Kharak Singh’s house, nightly domiciliary visits, periodic inquiries by officers, and tracking and verification of his movements. This type of surveillance, if conducted without any reasonable cause or adequate safeguards, could potentially violate Kharak Singh’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.

Therefore, the constitutionality of Chapter 20 of the U.P. Police Regulations, which allowed police officials to conduct this nature of surveillance, would need to be determined by the courts after considering the specific provisions of the Regulations and the manner in which they are implemented in practice.

ISSUES

1. Whether the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Art. 19(1)(d) and Art. 21 were violated?
2. Whether the “surveillance” under Chapter XX of UP Police Regulations constitutes an infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution?

ARGUMENTS

Petitioner is challenging Regulation 236, claiming that it violates constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21. Specifically ,he argues that being shadowed, obstructs his freedom of movement and could have psychological effects on him.

The Respondent- State argues that Regulations are not unconstitutional and do not violate any fundamental rights. They also argue that even if Regulations were found to violate fundamental rights, they are reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and allow the police to perform their duties efficiently. However, it is important to note that while fundamental rights are not absolute, any restrictions on them must be reasonable and necessary in a democratic society. The court would need to consider the specific provisions of the Regulation, as well as the arguments presented by both sides to make a determination about its constitutionality.

DECISION

The case dealt with the constitutionality of Chapter 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, which allowed the police to maintain a surveillance register and conduct domiciliary visits of history-sheeters, who were individuals considered likely to become habitual criminals. The Supreme Court of India, in a majority decision, upheld most of the provisions of Chapter 20, except for the provision authorizing domiciliary visits.

The majority opinion held that the Police Regulations were executive in nature and did not have any statutory basis, and hence did not constitute law as required under Article 21. However, the Court held that surveillance and secret picketing did not violate any fundamental right, as it did not impede the physical movement of the suspect. The Court also held that the right to privacy was not a guaranteed right under the Indian Constitution, and that the term ‘personal liberty’ used in Article 21 was a compendious term that included the right to privacy.

The Court found that the provision authorizing domiciliary visits violated Article 21, as it infringed upon the personal liberty of the suspect. However, the minority opinion held that the entire Regulation was unconstitutional, as it violated both Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21. The minority also held that the right to privacy was an essential ingredient of personal liberty, even though it was not expressly recognized as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.

Written BY, SHRAVANI GHOSH, 4^TH SEMESTER ,KINGSTON LAW COLLEGE

Admin