Open Access Research Article
Kharak Singh V State Of Up Air 1963 SC 1295 (By-Deepanshita Singh)
Published Paper
Article Details
Kharak
Singh V State Of Up Air 1963 SC 1295
Authored By-Deepanshita Singh
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune
Facts Of The Case
The Uttar Pradesh Police
Department opened a “history sheet” against the petitioner, Kharak Singh, under
Chapter 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations[1]
despite the fact that he was exonerated from a dacoity investigation owing to a
lack of evidence. These regulations allowed for the surveillance of people who
were habitual offenders or were thought to be developing that habit. Using
Regulation 236 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, the police carried out
surveillance that included tracing and verifying the petitioner’s movements,
nighttime visits, sporadic officer queries, and covert picketing of his
residence. Chapter 20 of the U.P. Police Regulations, which allowed police
officers to conduct this kind of surveillance on him, was deemed
unconstitutional by the petitioner.
ISSUES
This petition, which was
submitted in accordance with Article 32 of the Constitution[2],
contests the constitutionality of Chapter XX of the Uttar Pradesh Police
Regulations as well as the authority granted to police officials by its various
provisions on the grounds that they violate the rights of citizens protected by
Articles 19(1)(d)[3] and 21[4] of
the Constitution.
ANALYSIS
The Court considered the
legality of each clause of Regulation 236. The Court determined that keeping a
vigilant eye on a suspect and surreptitiously filming their activities did not
physically impede mobility and that an obstacle to action that is psychological
in nature is
not covered by Article 19
of the Fourth Amendment (1)(d). Additionally, it did not infringe upon the
suspect’s “personal liberty” as that term is used in Article 21.
The Court also looked at
how the "liberties" in Articles 19(1) and 21 linked to one another.
It came to the conclusion that while Article 19(1) dealt with particular
freedoms or freedom-related concepts, "the term 'personal liberty' is used
as a compendious term in Art. 21 as a compendious term," which took in and
constituted the rest. It was argued that the phrase "personal
liberty" is intended to serve the constitutional objective of guaranteeing
the individual's dignity, as expressed in the Preamble of the Constitution. The
Court concluded that clause (b) breached Article 21 and rendered unlawful
Regulation 236(b), which allowed for domiciliary visits, based on the
information presented above. However, the remainder of Chapter 20 of the U.P.
Police Regulations was upheld because "the right to privacy is not a protected
right under our Constitution" and attempts to track a person's whereabouts
only disturb his privacy.
Another crucial factor to
take into account in this scenario is the fact that article 21 is not a
fundamental right that would be accessible to the general public. This right is
necessary for living comfortably and peacefully. Therefore, as mentioned in
India's constitution, this right cannot be denied to common people who do not
fit into an exemption group.
Conclusion
This judgement does not
follow the law or the constitution. The laws are not effectively halted in this
case. The Indian constitution guarantees a citizen’s fundamental rights to
privacy and freedom of movement.
Every person born in this
nation has the right to exercise their fundamental rights, according to the
constitution. It is against the law if this is not properly disclosed to the
population. The verdict is only logical and not appropriate in light of the
facts and the circumstances surrounding the facts.
Therefore, even though
the judgement in this case to a certain extent fair and rational, it is not
appropriate when all factors are taken into account
This judgement was
overruled by the verdict of Justice KS Puttaswamy v.
Union of India[5].
Article Information
Kharak Singh V State Of Up Air 1963 SC 1295 (By-Deepanshita Singh)
Authors: Deepanshita Singh
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2022/09/30
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.