Supreme Court Declares Uttar Pradesh Police Regulation on Night Domiciliary Visits Unconstitutional, Protects Right to Privacy and Personal Liberty

In Landmark Judgment in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., the Court Strikes Down Police Regulation Authorizing Night Visits as Violative of Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution

In a landmark constitutional bench judgment dated December 18, 1962, the Supreme Court of India in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. has ruled that the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulation 236(b), which authorizes domiciliary visits at night to suspects’ homes, is unconstitutional and violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

The petitioner, Kharak Singh, who was placed under police surveillance after being suspected of involvement in criminal activities, challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions in Chapter XX of the U.P. Police Regulations. These regulations empowered police officials to carry out various surveillance measures, including secret picketing of the house, domiciliary visits at night, inquiries into personal habits, and monitoring movements.

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether these surveillance measures infringed the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) — the right to move freely throughout India — and Article 21 — protection of life and personal liberty.

The Court, in a detailed and thoughtful analysis, distinguished between different surveillance measures. It held that secret picketing (clause (a)) and other measures such as inquiries into habits and associations (clauses (c), (d), and (e)) did not violate the right to free movement or personal liberty in a tangible or direct manner, since these acts involved observation and recording without physical obstruction or intrusion.

However, the Court found that domiciliary visits at night (clause (b)), which authorized police officers to enter the suspect’s home, knock on doors at night, and disturb the suspect’s sleep, constituted a direct and tangible intrusion into personal liberty and privacy. Such visits were held to be violative of Article 21 as there was no statutory authority or “procedure established by law” to justify these measures. The police regulations under challenge lacked any statutory backing and were merely executive instructions, thus failing the constitutional requirement of “law” for restricting fundamental rights.

The judgment emphasized that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is not limited to mere animal existence but includes the right to live with dignity, security, and privacy. The Court drew upon comparative constitutional jurisprudence, including U.S. Supreme Court decisions, to highlight that arbitrary police intrusion into an individual’s home undermines the essence of personal liberty and ordered that such domiciliary visits be struck down.

The Court also explored the scope of freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d), interpreting “freedom to move freely” as a right not only to physical locomotion without obstruction but also free from psychological inhibition caused by surveillance or intimidation. Although the Court did not find the surveillance measures per se a violation of Article 19(1)(d), it recognized that domiciliary visits at night created a tangible intrusion incompatible with constitutional freedoms.

The majority opinion concluded that Regulation 236(b) authorizing domiciliary visits at night was unconstitutional and issued a writ of mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to cease such visits. The rest of the surveillance provisions were upheld.

A concurring opinion went further to hold that the entire Regulation 236 infringed the petitioner’s rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21, emphasizing that unrestricted police surveillance without any statutory basis could affect both freedom of movement and personal liberty in a broader sense. It stressed that the Constitution protects all citizens, including suspected criminals, against arbitrary state action.

This judgment is a foundational precedent affirming the constitutional limits on police powers and safeguarding citizens’ right to privacy, personal liberty, and freedom of movement against arbitrary surveillance and intrusion. It underscores the principle that any restriction on fundamental rights must be supported by valid law and reasonable procedures.

Statutory provisions

Articles 19(1)(d), 19(2), 21, 32 of the Constitution of India; Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, Chapter XX, Regulation 236 (specifically clause (b))

---

This news report captures the essence of the Supreme Court’s reasoning and decision in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., elucidating the constitutional protections against arbitrary police surveillance and intrusion into private homes.

Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 111266