Summary of Landmark judgment

Case: Kharak Singh vs. The State of U.P. & Others



Date of Order / Judgment: 18 December 1962

Judges: Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, Justice Bhuvneshwar P. Sinha, Justice Syed Jaffer Imam, Justice J.C. Shah, Justice J.R. Mudholkar

Background:

The case centered on the practices employed by the Uttar Pradesh police to surveil individuals deemed suspicious, particularly Kharak Singh. He challenged the constitutionality of certain police regulations that allowed for extensive surveillance without clear legal justification. Kharak Singh argued that these practices infringed upon his rights to privacy and personal liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Issues

  • 1. Whether the Right to Privacy can be limited only in the presence of a compelling state interest, and if mere police suspicion suffices for such limitations.
  • 2. Whether the surveillance practices imposed by the U.P. police infringed upon Articles 19(d) and 21 of the Constitution, particularly concerning the tracking of Kharak Singh’s activities.

Observation

The Court emphasized that any infringement on the Right to Privacy requires compelling justification from the state. It clarified that mere suspicion or subjective satisfaction of police authorities is insufficient grounds for encroaching upon an individual's privacy. The judges noted that while tracking individuals, particularly habitual criminals, is important for public safety, this must be balanced with constitutional protections. The Court recognized the need for procedural safeguards and objective standards governing any limitation of privacy rights.

Decision

  • 1. The Supreme Court acknowledged the Right to Privacy as a significant consideration under Article 21 of the Constitution, though it did not formally declare it a fundamental right at this stage.
  • 2. The Court held that the Right to Privacy can only be limited if there is a compelling state interest; mere suspicion or subjective satisfaction, of police authorities, is inadequate for such limitations.
  • 3. The Court ruled that the practices employed by the Uttar Pradesh police to surveil Kharak Singh did not meet the necessary legal standards, as they were based on mere suspicion.
  • 4. While acknowledging the importance of tracking potential habitual criminals, the Court stressed that this must be balanced against the constitutional rights of individuals.
  • 5. The Court underscored that any state surveillance must adhere to established legal procedures to prevent arbitrary actions against individuals.
  • 6. The judgment laid the groundwork for future jurisprudence concerning the Right to Privacy, becoming the first case to recognize the Right to Privacy.