9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Regulations 855 and 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations. 2. Violation of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution. 3. Interpretation of the term 'personal liberty' under Article 21. 4. Right to privacy as a fundamental right. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Regulations 855 and 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations: The petitioner challenged the validity of Regulations 855 and 856, alleging they were not framed under any provision of the Police Act. The court held that the regulations were framed under s.46(2)(c) of the Police Act, which allows the State Government to make rules for giving effect to the provisions of the Act. The court concluded that the regulations aimed to prevent the commission of offenses, aligning with the Police Act's objective to reorganize the police for crime prevention and detection. Therefore, Regulations 855 and 856 were deemed to have the force of law. 2. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution: The petitioner argued that the police actions under these regulations violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21. The court referred to the precedent set in Kharak Singh v. The State of U.P., where domiciliary visits were declared unconstitutional for violating Article 21. However, it was noted that other provisions of the regulation were constitutional. The court reiterated that 'personal liberty' under Article 21 includes rights beyond those in Article 19(1)(d), and any invasion of privacy by police must be justified by law. 3. Interpretation of the Term 'Personal Liberty' under Article 21: The court discussed the expansive interpretation of 'personal liberty' in Article 21, encompassing various rights essential for personal freedom. The court cited past judgments, emphasizing that 'personal liberty' includes the right to privacy and the sanctity of one's home. The court acknowledged that the right to sleep and personal security are integral to 'personal liberty,' and any arbitrary intrusion by the police is inconsistent with this right. 4. Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right: The petitioner claimed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right derived from other fundamental rights. The court explored the concept of privacy, referencing U.S. cases like Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade, which recognized privacy as a fundamental right. The court acknowledged that privacy is crucial for personal dignity and autonomy, and any law infringing this right must be justified by a compelling state interest. However, the court noted that the right to privacy is not absolute and must be balanced against public interest. The court concluded that while Regulations 855 and 856 could potentially infringe on privacy, they must be interpreted narrowly to align with constitutional principles. Surveillance should be limited to individuals posing a genuine threat to public safety, and domiciliary visits should only occur in clear cases of danger to community security. The court emphasized the need for the State to revise these regulations to ensure they do not verge on unconstitutionality. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that Regulations 855 and 856, when read narrowly, are constitutional and necessary for preventing crime. The court urged the State to revise these regulations to better align with personal freedoms and constitutional values.
|
