Kharak Singh vs State of UP
This is a landmark case concerning the right to privacy and preventive detention under the Indian Constitution.
1. Case Name:
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295; (1962) 1 SCR 332
2. Facts of the Case
Petitioner: Kharak Singh, a resident of Uttar Pradesh.
Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh.
Background:
Kharak Singh was subjected to preventive detention under the U.P. Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
The Act allowed the police to keep a person under surveillance, including visiting his house at night and maintaining a police record.
Singh challenged the Act as violating Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and Article 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement).
Key Issue:
Whether preventive detention powers and police surveillance under the Act violated fundamental rights, particularly the right to personal liberty and privacy.
3. Legal Issues
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty:
Does it include the right to privacy and personal security?
Preventive Detention:
Are provisions allowing police to visit homes at night and maintain personal records constitutional?
Freedom of Movement (Article 19(1)(d)):
Does preventive detention arbitrarily restrict movement without judicial oversight?
4. Supreme Court’s Analysis
Scope of Article 21:
Court recognized that personal liberty includes some aspects of privacy.
Right to privacy and personal security in one’s home is protected under Article 21.
Police Surveillance:
Court observed that night visits and domiciliary checks without specific cause are arbitrary and violate fundamental rights.
Preventive Detention:
Preventive detention is permissible under law, but must not violate personal liberty unnecessarily.
Judicial review is necessary to ensure detention is not arbitrary.
Reasonableness:
State action must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and justified by law.
5. Judgment
Supreme Court held:
Kharak Singh’s right to personal liberty was violated by domiciliary visits at night and police surveillance.
Preventive detention under the Act is constitutional if it meets procedural safeguards, but unrestricted police powers violate fundamental rights.
Right to privacy and personal security is an integral part of Article 21.
Significance:
First case in India to recognize right to privacy as part of fundamental rights.
Limited the arbitrary powers of police under preventive detention laws.
6. Key Principles Established
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Right to Privacy | Recognized as part of personal liberty under Article 21 |
| Preventive Detention | Valid only if reasonable, lawful, and non-arbitrary |
| Limit on Police Powers | Domiciliary visits and surveillance must follow legal safeguards |
| Judicial Oversight | Courts can review preventive detention actions for arbitrariness |
| Fundamental Rights Protection | Article 21 protects life, liberty, and personal security |
7. Later Developments
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)
Reaffirmed that right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity, which is connected to privacy.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Right to privacy was affirmed as a fundamental right, building upon principles laid in Kharak Singh.
Preventive Detention Laws
Preventive detention continues but must adhere to procedural safeguards and judicial review.
8. Conclusion
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962) is a landmark case on right to privacy and preventive detention:
Right to personal liberty under Article 21 includes privacy.
Preventive detention is constitutional but must be reasonable and not arbitrary.
First recognition of privacy as part of fundamental rights in India.
Set the foundation for future landmark judgments on privacy and personal liberty.
RELATED Blog
0 comments