Unlawful Search And Seizure
Search and Seizure refers to the act of law enforcement authorities searching a person’s property, premises, or possessions and confiscating items relevant to a criminal investigation. This is regulated under law to balance state interests in investigation and individual rights to privacy and property.
Unlawful search and seizure occurs when authorities conduct the search or seize property without legal authority, in violation of procedure, or in breach of constitutional protections, particularly Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN INDIA
Constitution of India
Article 20(3): Protection against self-incrimination.
Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty.
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973
Sections 93-102, 165, 166, 451 regulate search and seizure procedures.
Section 100 CrPC: Conditions for lawful search of a place of residence.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Confiscated items must be admissible in court.
Evidence obtained unlawfully may be excluded.
Prevention of Unlawful Search
Search warrants are generally required unless it’s exigent circumstances.
Procedural safeguards include witnesses, notice, and inventory of seized items.
CHARACTERISTICS OF UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Conducted without proper authority or warrant
Violates constitutional rights
Lack of justification or probable cause
Exceeds powers granted by law
Evidence obtained may be declared inadmissible
DETAILED CASE LAWS ON UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE
1. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604)
Facts:
In this case, the police registered FIR and conducted searches against the petitioner (Bhajan Lal) without sufficient evidence.
Legal Issue:
Whether police can initiate searches and seize property without prior sanction and sufficient evidence.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent misuse of power:
Police cannot use sections 154-156 CrPC arbitrarily.
Search and seizure must be based on reasonable suspicion or evidence.
Significance:
This case is a landmark for controlling arbitrary police action and protecting citizens from unlawful searches.
2. Kharak Singh v. State of UP (1962)
Facts:
The UP Police placed the petitioner under domiciliary surveillance, entering his home without consent.
Legal Issue:
Does domiciliary surveillance and search violate Article 21 (right to privacy)?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court recognized that unlawful entry into private homes violates personal liberty under Article 21.
Significance:
First recognition of privacy as part of personal liberty.
Laid foundations for right to be secure in one’s home.
3. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Facts:
Many cases of illegal detention and searches in police stations were reported, leading to custodial deaths.
Legal Issue:
How to prevent abuse during arrests, searches, and seizures?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court provided guidelines for arrests and searches, including:
Arrest memo in duplicate.
Medical examination of the arrested person.
Presence of witnesses during searches.
Significance:
Strengthened procedural safeguards.
Evidence obtained in violation may be challenged.
4. Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India (1987)
Facts:
Unlawful search and seizure of documents in a legal office was challenged.
Legal Issue:
Whether the confiscation of privileged communication violates constitutional rights.
Judgment:
Supreme Court emphasized attorney-client privilege:
Search without proper justification is illegal.
Courts must ensure protection of professional confidentiality.
Significance:
Protected sensitive documents and professional secrecy from unlawful seizure.
5. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006)
Facts:
Police conducted search of the petitioner’s premises without valid warrant and seized property.
Legal Issue:
Can evidence obtained in violation of CrPC Sections 93-102 be admitted?
Judgment:
Evidence seized illegally cannot be admitted.
Search warrants and proper procedure are mandatory except in emergency situations.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle: “Unlawful search vitiates evidence.”
6. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
Facts:
The use of brain mapping, narco-analysis, and lie detection tests was challenged as invasive.
Legal Issue:
Do involuntary scientific tests amount to unlawful search and seizure of body?
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled:
Such tests without consent violate Article 20(3) and 21.
Consent is mandatory; involuntary tests are unconstitutional.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of unlawful search to include bodily intrusion and psychological coercion.
7. State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Khedekar (1986)
Facts:
Police seized goods from the petitioner’s warehouse without a proper search warrant.
Legal Issue:
Whether seizure without following CrPC procedure is valid.
Judgment:
Court held that strict compliance with procedure is required. Any deviation renders seizure illegal.
Significance:
Emphasized strict adherence to statutory safeguards during search and seizure.
CONCLUSION
Unlawful search and seizure is a violation of constitutional rights (Articles 20(3) and 21).
Procedural safeguards in CrPC, Evidence Act, and Supreme Court guidelines are crucial.
Courts have consistently ruled that evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible.
Landmark cases like Bhajan Lal, DK Basu, Selvi, Kharak Singh have strengthened citizens’ protection against state overreach.
Law enforcement must ensure authorization, reasonability, and transparency during searches and seizures.
RELATED Blog
comments