LexGOVIND versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
9 46
(jOVIND
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
March 18, 1975
[K. K. MATHEW, v. R. KRISHNA IYER AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, 855 and 856, made under s. 46 (2) (c)
o/ Police Act, 1961--.// violative of Arts. 19(i)(d) and 21.
The petitioner in a petition under Art. 32, challenged the validity of Regula-
tions 855 and 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations made by the Govern·
ment under the Police Act, 1961. Regulation 855 provides that where on infor·
mation the District Superintendent believes that a particular individual is leadin~
a life of crime, and his conduct shows a determination to lead a life of crime
that individual's name may be ordered to be entered in the surveillance register,
and he would be placed under regular surveillance. Regulation 856 provides that
such surveillance, inter a/ia may consist of don\iciliary visits both by day and
night at frequent but irregular intervals. It was contended· that, (I) the Regula·
tions were not framed under any provision of the Police Act, and (2) even if
they were framed under s. 46(2) of the Police Act, the provisions regarding
dpmiciliary visits offended Arts. 19(1 )(d) and 21.
Dismissing the petition,
HEW: (1) The Regulations were framed under s. 46(2)(c) of the Police
Act al)d have the force of law. The paragraph provides that the State Govern-
ment may make rules generally for giving effect to the provisions of the Act; and
one of the objects of the Act is to prevent the commission of crimes. The pr0vi-
sion regarding domiciliary visits i~ intended to prevent commission of offences,
because, their obiect is to see if the individual is at home or gone out of it for
commL'lSion of offences. [949 F·G, H-950 A]
A
., ,,
c
D
(2) (a) Too broad a definition of privacy will raise serious questions about the
E
propriety of ,.idicial reliance on a right that is not explicit in the Constitution.
The right to privacy will, therefore, necessarily. have to go through a process ('f
case by case devdopment. Hence, assuming that the right to personal liberty,
the right to move freely throughout India and the freedom of speech create an
indel'endent fundamental right of privacy as an emanation from them it could
not he absolute. It must be suhjcct to restriction on the basis of coml)elling pul'·
lie interest.
Bl.'.t the law infringing it must satisfy the compelling state interest
test. [954 D..C, H-955 B; 956 B-C]
l·
(b) Oras:ic inroads directly into privacy and indirectly into fundamental right
will b~ made if the ltegulations were to be read too widely. When there are two
int:n>retHtions. one w:<le and unconstitutional, and the other narrower but within
constitutional bounds. the Court will read down the over flowing expressiom to
make them valid .. [955 D·E; 956 G]
(c) A~ the Regulations have force of law, the petitioner's fundamental right
1mdcr Art. 21 is not violated. [955 HJ
(d) It cannot be said that surveillance by domiciliary visits would always he
an unrc~sonablc re~triction upon ihe right of privacv.
It is onlv persons who
are snsoected to be habitnal criminals and those who are determined to k:.id a
crimiml life that arc subiecte<l to surveillance. If 'crime' in this context is con·
fined to such acts as involve public peace or secmitv, the law imposing such a
reasonable restriction mus! be urheld as valid. [956 C-D, F-Hl
G
[Legality apart, these regufotions ill-accord with the essence of personal free-
I I
doms and the State will do well to revise these old Po11ce Regulations. Domici·
liarv 'isits and nirketing bv the police should he reduced to the clearest cases
of community security and should no~ become routine follnw un at the end of a
conv!ction or release from jail, or at the whim of a police officer.] (957 A-CJ
A
GCVIND v. M. P. STATE (Mathew, !,)
947
Kharak Singh v. The State of U.P. & Ors., [1964] 1 S.C.R. 332, Griswold v.
Connecticut, 381, U.S. 479, 510; Jane Roe v. Henry Wade, 410 U.S. 113 a11d
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438. 471. referred to.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 72 of 1970.
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
B
A. K. Gupta and R. A. Gupta for the Petitioner.
c
D
E
G
H
Ram Punjwani, H. S. Parihar and /. M. Shroff, for
the Res·
pondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MATHEW, J.
The petitioner is a citizen of India. He challenges
the validity of Regulations 855 and 856 of the MaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.