Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Supreme Court of India · 18 March 1975 · 3 judges · 1975 AIR 1378; 1975 SCR (3) 946; 1975 SCC (2) 148
The Court upheld Regulations 855 and 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations on surveillance and domiciliary visits, reading them down narrowly, and held that any right to privacy is not absolute; the writ petition was dismissed.
Facts
The petitioner, a citizen, challenged under Article 32 Regulations 855 and 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations. He said the police had filed false cases against him, in all but two of which he was acquitted, had opened a history sheet treating him as a habitual criminal and had placed him under surveillance. The police made domiciliary visits by day and night, secretly picketed his house, had the village patel watch his movements, and required him to report his departures and destination. He sought a declaration that the Regulations violated Articles 19(1)(d) and 21. The State replied that he had been convicted in two cases in 1962, bound over in 1969 and had compounded other cases, and that he was a dangerous criminal kept under surveillance to prevent offences.
Questions before the Court
- Were Regulations 855 and 856 made under the Police Act, so as to have the force of law?
- Is there a fundamental right to privacy, and if so is it absolute?
- Do surveillance and domiciliary visits under Regulation 856 violate Articles 21 and 19(1)(d)?
What the Court held
- The Regulations were made under Section 46(2)(c) of the Police Act, which allows rules for giving effect to the Act. Preventing offences is an object of the Act, and domiciliary visits are meant to prevent offences, so Regulations 855 and 856 have the force of law.
- Even assuming that the rights to personal liberty, free movement and free speech create an independent fundamental right of privacy, it is not absolute. It must develop case by case and may be restricted on the basis of compelling public interest.
- As Regulation 856 has the force of law and the procedure is reasonable in view of Regulations 853(c) and 857, Article 21 is not violated. Even if Article 19(1)(d) protects privacy of movement, the Regulation is a reasonable restriction for a compelling State interest.
- Read down, the Regulations allow surveillance only of persons whom reasonable material shows to be determined to lead a life of crime affecting public peace or security; convictions in cases not gravely imperilling society's safety do not suffice. Domiciliary visits and picketing must be confined to the clearest cases of danger to community security.
- Action beyond the limits so set is open to challenge as unconstitutional and void. The petition was dismissed, with the observation that the Regulations ill-accord with personal freedom and the State should revise them.
Why it matters
The Court proceeded on the assumption that a right to privacy may be a fundamental right emanating from the rights to personal liberty, free movement and free speech, while holding that it is not absolute and must develop case by case. It also explained that the holding in Kharak Singh that the U.P. Regulations were not law rested on a concession, and it used reading down to confine police surveillance to persons who are real dangers to public peace or security.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“that the right to personal liberty, the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the freedom of speech create an independent right of privacy as an emanation from them which one can characterize as a fundamental right, we do not think that the right is absolute.”
“Assuming that the fundamental rights explicitly guaranteed to a citizen have penumbral zones and that the right to privacy is itself a fundamental right, that fundamental right must be subject to restriction on the basis of compelling public interest”
“When there are two interpretations, one wide and unconstitutional, the other narrower but within constitutional bounds, this Court will read down the overflowing expressions to make them valid. So read, the two regulations are more restricted than counsel for the petitioner sought to impress upon us.”
“Similarly, domiciliary visits and picketing by the police should be reduced to the clearest cases of danger to community security and not routine follow-up at the end of a conviction or release from prison or at the whim of a police officer. In truth, legality apart, these regulations ill-accord with the essence of personal freedoms and the State will do well to revise these old police regulations verging perilously near unconstitutionality.”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 21, Constitution
- Article 19(1)(d) and 19(5), Constitution
- Regulations 855 and 856, Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations
- Section 46(2)(c), Police Act
Related judgments
- Distinguishes Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962)“was based upon a concession made on behalf of the State of U.P. that the U.P. Police Regulations were not framed under any of the provisions of the Police Act” (page 4)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Case
- Writ Petition No. 72 of 1970
- Decided
- 18 March 1975
- Bench
- Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien, Krishnaiyer, V.R., Goswami, P.K.
- Opinions
- Unanimous. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mathew, J.