Kharak Singh vs State of UP

The Kharak Singh vs State of UP case focused on the constitutional review of Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, particularly Regulation 236.

Facts of Kharak Singh vs State of UP

Kharak Singh, the person asking for justice, was let go from a robbery investigation due to lack of proof against him. But the police in U.P. began keeping a record of his activities as a potentially habitually criminal person under Chapter 20 of the U.P. Police Rules. These rules allowed the police to watch people who were either already repeat offenders or were believed to become repeat offenders.

They monitored Kharak Singh using Rule 236 of the U.P. Police Rules, which involved secret watching of his house, visiting his home at night, regular checks by officers and tracking his movements. Kharak Singh challenged the fairness of Chapter 20 of the U.P. Police Rules, which let the police perform this kind of monitoring on him.

Issues

The issues raised in Kharak Singh vs State of UP:

Was the “monitoring” allowed in Chapter 20 of U.P. Police Rules an infringement of basic rights promised by Part III of the Constitution?

Arguments

Kharak Singh argued in Kharak Singh vs State of UP that all parts of Rule 236 broke his constitutional right ‘to freely move anywhere in India’ guaranteed by Article 19(1)(d) and ‘personal freedom’ under Article 21. He said that following someone restricted their ‘free movement’ and might affect them mentally.

The State inKharak Singh vs State of UP, in response, argued that the rules were not against the Constitution as they didn’t breach any basic rights. They argued that even if they did, the rules were made “in the interest of the general public and public order” and helped the police do their job properly. So, they claimed that these rules were ‘reasonable restrictions’ on basic rights.

Provisions Applied

The issue of whether fundamental rights in Kharak Singh vs State of UP, specifically the right to freedom of movement and personal liberty, have been violated due to surveillance is under scrutiny. This pertains to the Constitution of India, specifically Articles 19(1)(d), 21 and 32, in light of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, more specifically, Regulation 236.

Judgement in Kharak Singh vs State of UP

In a decision in Kharak Singh vs State of UP by a six-judge Supreme Court panel, they agreed to overturn certain parts of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, deeming them unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Sinha and Justices Imam and Mudholkar in Kharak Singh vs State of UP concurred with Justice Ayyangar’s opinion. He noted that the regulations granted various surveillance powers, such as secret monitoring of houses, unannounced visits and tracking individuals with a history of offenses to record their movements and contacts.

Regarding the effect of the house monitoring on the right to move freely (Article 19(1)(d)), he rejected the argument, stating that those visiting the house wouldn’t be aware of the monitoring.

Justice Ayyangar then addressed the issue of unannounced visits. He argued that this action, impacting the right to life protected under Article 21, contradicted the concept of life with human dignity and went beyond the powers allowed. He highlighted that such actions violated Article 21 as they weren’t legally grounded.

He concluded in Kharak Singh vs State of UP that shadowing individuals with a history of offences didn’t hinder their movement and any privacy effects were insignificant, considering the right to privacy wasn’t fundamental. Thus, he recommended striking down the regulations only concerning unannounced visits.

Justice Shah agreed with Justice Subba Rao’s view. They both concurred that the provision for unannounced visits was unconstitutional. However, Justice Subba Rao felt that the entire Regulations breached freedom of movement and the right to life and hence were unconstitutional. He believed that personal liberties should be safeguarded from both direct and indirect intrusions. Justice Subba Rao also argued that the right to privacy should be considered a fundamental right, even without express mention in the Constitution. He contended that the rules significantly violated this right. As the regulations didn’t qualify as “law,” they violated Article 21.

Furthermore, Justice Subba Rao in Kharak Singh vs State of UP argued that invading privacy prevented individuals from expressing their innermost thoughts. Consequently, he concluded that the regulations also violated the right to freedom of expression (Article 19(1)(a)). He emphasized that freedom of movement wasn’t just about physical barriers but also included the freedom to move without unnecessary restrictions. In his opinion, police shadowing restricted this freedom. Thus, he concluded that the regulations, in their entirety, violated fundamental rights and were unconstitutional.

Conclusion

The case of Kharak Singh vs. State of UP centres on the constitutional scrutiny of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, particularly Regulation 236 and its impact on fundamental rights. It specifically questions the potential infringement on the right to freedom of movement and personal liberty, as guaranteed by Articles 19(1)(d), 21 and 32 of the Indian Constitution.

The case debates the validity of surveillance measures within Regulation 236 and their alignment with constitutional freedoms, highlighting concerns about the surveillance practices’ conformity to the fundamental liberties enshrined in the Indian Constitution.