Kharak Singh vs State of UP | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Facts of Kharak Singh vs State of UP

• Kharak Singh was investigated for robbery but released due to lack of evidence.
• U.P. police started monitoring him under Chapter 20 of U.P. Police Rules as a potential habitual criminal.
• Rule 236 allowed secret surveillance of his home, night visits, regular checks, and tracking of movements.
• Kharak Singh contested the fairness of this monitoring under Chapter 20 of U.P. Police Rules.

Issues in Kharak Singh vs State of UP

• The key issue was whether the surveillance authorized in Chapter 20 of U.P. Police Rules violated fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Arguments

• Kharak Singh contended in the case of Kharak Singh vs State of UP that Rule 236 infringed upon his constitutional rights, specifically his freedom to move anywhere in India as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(d) and his personal freedom under Article 21. He argued that being followed restricted his freedom of movement and could have negative psychological effects.
• The State's response in the case was that the rules in question did not violate the Constitution, as they did not infringe upon any fundamental rights. They asserted that even if there were any violations, the rules were established "in the interest of the general public and public order" and were essential for the police to effectively carry out their duties. Consequently, they asserted that these rules constituted "reasonable restrictions" on basic rights.

Provisions Applied

• The Legal Issue: The debate surrounds whether there has been a breach of fundamental rights concerning freedom of movement and personal liberty, as addressed in the Kharak Singh vs State of UP case.
• Constitutional Elements: Articles in Question: Specifically, Articles 19(1)(d), 21, and 32 of the Indian Constitution are being examined in this context.
• Regulatory Framework: Focus of Inquiry: The Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations are central to this discussion, especially Regulation 236.

Judgement in Kharak Singh vs State of UP

• In the case of Kharak Singh vs State of UP, a six-judge Supreme Court panel unanimously agreed to overturn certain provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, deeming them unconstitutional.
• Chief Justice Sinha and Justices Imam and Mudholkar, concurring with Justice Ayyangar's opinion, addressed various surveillance powers granted by the regulations, including secret monitoring of houses, unannounced visits, and tracking individuals with a history of offenses.
• Justice Ayyangar rejected the argument that house monitoring infringed upon the right to move freely (Article 19(1)(d)), reasoning that visitors wouldn't be aware of the surveillance.
• Regarding unannounced visits, he argued that they violated the right to life protected under Article 21, as they contradicted the concept of life with human dignity and exceeded permissible powers. He concluded that such actions were not legally grounded and recommended striking down the regulations concerning unannounced visits only.
• Justice Shah, concurring with Justice Subba Rao's view, agreed that the provision for unannounced visits was unconstitutional. However, Justice Subba Rao deemed the entire Regulations unconstitutional, asserting that they breached freedom of movement and the right to life. He contended that personal liberties should be safeguarded from both direct and indirect intrusions and argued for the recognition of the right to privacy as a fundamental right, even without express mention in the Constitution. 
• Justice Subba Rao maintained that the regulations significantly violated this right, as invading privacy hindered individuals from expressing their innermost thoughts. Additionally, he argued that police surveillance restricted freedom of expression (Article 19(1)(a)), as freedom of movement encompasses not just physical barriers but also the freedom to move without unnecessary restrictions. Thus, he concluded that the regulations, in their entirety, violated fundamental rights and were unconstitutional.

Conclusion

• The Kharak Singh vs. State of UP case focuses on the constitutional examination of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, particularly Regulation 236, and its implications for fundamental rights. It raises questions regarding the possible violation of 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 deliberates on the legality of surveillance measures outlined in Regulation 236 and their consistency with constitutional freedoms, underscoring apprehensions about the conformity of surveillance practices with the fundamental liberties outlined in the Indian Constitution.