1962 (12) TMI 67 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court rules against domiciliary visits in U.P. Police Regulations

The Supreme Court partially allowed the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Chapter XX of the U.P. Police Regulations. The Court held ... Personal liberty - right to move freely - domiciliary visits - surveillance - procedure established by law - history-sheetsDomiciliary visits - personal liberty - procedure established by law - Validity of Regulation 236(b) authorising domiciliary visits under Chapter XX of the U.P. Police Regulations - HELD THAT: - The Court examined whether night domiciliary visits authorised by Regulation 236(b) amount to a deprivation of 'personal liberty' under Art. 21 in the absence of any statutory law authorising them. Having regard to the nature of domiciliary visits - entry into a private dwelling, knocking at the door, and disturbing sleep to verify presence - the majority held that such authorised intrusions invade the sanctity of the home and personal security and are not permissible without a law. Because the impugned regulations are departmental executive instructions and not 'a law' or 'procedure established by law,' Regulation 236(b) cannot be constitutionally justified and must be struck down.Regulation 236(b) struck down as unconstitutional; writ of mandamus issued restraining domiciliary visits.Surveillance - history-sheets - right to move freely - personal liberty - Whether the remaining measures of surveillance in Regulation 236 (clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f)) infringe Art. 19(1)(d) or Art. 21 - HELD THAT: - The majority analysed each category of surveillance other than domiciliary visits. Secret picketing (cl. (a)) - understood as watching and recording visitors - was held not to constitute a tangible interference with locomotion or to amount to deprivation of personal liberty under Art. 21. The collection of information, periodical enquiries by officers, reporting and verification of movements (cls. (c)-(f)) were treated as methods of shadowing and recording activity; the Court found that keeping watch and obtaining information about movements does not, by itself, impede physical locomotion protected by Art. 19(1)(d) nor constitute deprivation of 'personal liberty' under Art. 21 in the absence of a more direct, tangible restraint. The petition therefore failed insofar as it sought to invalidate those measures. (A concurring judge would have invalidated the whole Regulation, but the majority decision confined invalidation to clause (b).)Clauses (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of Regulation 236 held not to infringe Arts. 19(1)(d) or 21; challenge to those clauses dismissed.Final Conclusion: The writ petition is partly allowed: Regulation 236(b) permitting night domiciliary visits is unconstitutional and must be quashed; the remaining surveillance measures in Regulation 236 are not struck down by the majority and the petition is dismissed insofar as they are challenged. 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.