1962 (12) TMI 67 - SC - Indian Laws

News - Though right of privacy is a fundamental right. Informational privacy is a facet of the right to privacy. An invasion by the Government is allowed only for legitimate aims - SC

1965 (10) TMI 76 - SC

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Chapter XX of the U.P. Police Regulations.
2. Violation of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.
3. Legality of police surveillance measures, particularly domiciliary visits.

Issue-Wise Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Chapter XX of the U.P. Police Regulations:
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Chapter XX of the U.P. Police Regulations, arguing that the powers conferred upon police officials violated the rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner was subjected to police surveillance, including domiciliary visits, secret picketing, and reporting of movements. The State defended the regulations, claiming they did not infringe on fundamental rights and were reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order.

2. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21:
The Court examined whether the surveillance measures infringed upon the petitioner's right to move freely throughout India (Article 19(1)(d)) and the right to personal liberty (Article 21). The Court noted that the impugned regulations were not backed by any statutory law but were merely executive instructions. Therefore, if these regulations infringed on the petitioner's fundamental rights, they could not be justified.

3. Legality of Police Surveillance Measures:
The Court analyzed the specific surveillance measures under Regulation 236:

- Secret Picketing (Clause a): The Court found that secret picketing did not materially affect the right to move freely or personal liberty as it involved merely watching and recording visitors to the suspect's house.

- Domiciliary Visits at Night (Clause b): The Court held that domiciliary visits, involving police entering the suspect's house at night, constituted a violation of personal liberty under Article 21. The intrusion into the residence and disturbance of sleep were deemed unconstitutional as there was no law authorizing such actions.

- Other Measures (Clauses c, d, e, f): These measures involved inquiries into the suspect's habits, associations, and movements. The Court concluded that these did not infringe on the right to move freely or personal liberty, as the right to privacy is not a guaranteed right under the Constitution.

Separate Judgments:

Majority Judgment:
The majority opinion held that Regulation 236(b), authorizing domiciliary visits, was unconstitutional and violated Article 21. The petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus restraining the State from continuing domiciliary visits. The rest of the petition was dismissed.

Separate Opinion (Subba Rao, J.):
Subba Rao, J. agreed that Regulation 236(b) was unconstitutional but went further to hold that the entire Regulation 236 infringed both Articles 19(1)(d) and 21. He emphasized that the right to personal liberty includes freedom from restrictions on movements and encroachments on private life. The shadowing and surveillance measures imposed psychological restraints, infringing on the petitioner's freedom of movement and personal liberty. Consequently, he would have struck down the entire Regulation 236.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court partly allowed the writ petition, striking down Regulation 236(b) as unconstitutional and issuing a writ of mandamus to stop domiciliary visits. The rest of the petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →