Kharak Singh vs State of UP (1962) - Case Analysis

Last Updated on May 13, 2025
Download As PDF
IMPORTANT LINKS
Landmark Judgements
Advocates Act
Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Civil Procedure Code
Company Law
Constitutional Law
Dk Basu vs State of West Bengal Golaknath vs State of Punjab Hussainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala Selvi vs State of Karnataka Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala State of Madras vs Champakam Dorairajan State of Up vs Raj Narain Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka Unnikrishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh Dc Wadhwa vs State of Bihar Mc Mehta vs State of Tamil Nadu Rudul Sah vs State of Bihar Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan Kedarnath vs State of Bihar Kharak Singh vs State of Up State of Rajasthan vs Vidyawati Kasturi Lal vs State of Up Vishakha vs State of Rajasthan Mr Balaji vs State of Mysore Ram Jawaya vs State of Punjab Bhikaji vs State of Mp Lata Singh vs State of Up Maqbool Hussain vs State of Bombay Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs State of Bombay Anil Rai vs State of Bihar Khatri vs State of Bihar R Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa State of Karnataka vs Umadevi Rajbala vs State of Haryana Siddaraju vs State of Karnataka Jagmohan vs State of Up Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi Shamsher vs State of Punjab Tma Pai Foundation vs State of Karnataka Jagpal Singh vs State of Punjab Automobile Transport vs State of Rajasthan State Trading Corporation of India vs Commercial Tax officer Dhulabhai vs State of Mp Joseph vs State of Kerala State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kathi Raning Rawat vs State of Saurashtra Krishna Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar Kharak Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh Ep Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu State of West Bengal vs Union of India Pa Inamdar vs State of Maharashtra Ratilal vs State of Bombay Veena Sethi vs State of Bihar State of Bombay vs Narasu Appa Mali Pucl vs State of Maharashtra Lk Koolwal vs State of Rajasthan Nalsa vs Union of India Joseph Shine vs Union of India Shayara Bano vs Union of India Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs Union of India Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India Ks Puttaswamy vs Union of India Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India Sr Bommai vs Union of India Lily Thomas vs Union of India​ Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration​ M Nagaraj vs Union of India​ Kaushal Kishore vs State of Up Zee Telefilms vs Union of India Bcci vs Cricket Association of Bihar Shakti Vahini vs Union of India​ Animal Welfare Board of India vs Union of India​ T Devadasan vs Union of India Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain Chintaman Rao vs State of Mp Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India Som Prakash vs Union of India Kalyan Kumar Gogoi vs Ashutosh Agnihotri Tej Prakash Pathak vs Rajasthan High Court State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh Balram Singh vs Union of India Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra Anjum Kadari vs Union of India Omkar vs The Union of India V Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India Sita Soren vs Union of India Vishal Tiwari vs Union of India State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu Jaya Thakur vs Union of India Ameena Begum vs The State Of Telangana Cbi vs Rr Kishore Government Of Nct Of Delhi vs Office Of Lieutenant Governor Of Delhi Keshavan Madhava Menon vs State Of Bombay Kishore Samrite vs State Of Up Md Rahim Ali Abdur Rahim vs The State Of Assam Mineral Area Development Authority vs Steel Authority Of India
Contempt of Courts Act
Contract Law
Copyright Act
Criminal Procedure Code
Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar Ak Gopalan vs State of Madras Sakiri Vasu vs State of Up State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab Pyare Lal Bhargava vs State of Rajasthan Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State of Gujarat Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs State of Punjab Joginder Kumar vs State of Up Lalita vs State of Up Kashmira Singh vs State of Punjab Rakesh Kumar Paul vs State of Assam Rajesh vs State of Haryana Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat Dharampal vs State of Haryana Dudhnath Pandey vs State of Up State of Karnataka vs Yarappa Reddy Rekha Murarka vs State of West Bengal Mallikarjun Kodagali vs State of Karnataka State of Haryana vs Dinesh Kumar​ Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs State of Punjab Ar Antulay vs Rs Nayak Noor Saba Khatoon vs Mohd Quasim Saleem Bhai vs State of Maharashtra​ State Delhi Administration vs Sanjay Gandhi Gurcharan Singh vs State Delhi Admn​ Central Bureau of Investigation vs Vikas Mishra Satender Kumar Antil vs Cbi Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh vs State of Gujarat​ Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation Devu G Nair vs The State of Kerala Sharif Ahmad vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Home Department Secretary
Environmental Law
Forest Conservation Act
Hindu Law
Partnership Act
Indian Evidence Act
Indian Penal Code
Km Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab State of Maharashtra vs Mh George Amrit Singh vs State of Punjab Malkiat Singh vs State of Punjab Tukaram vs State of Maharashtra Virsa Singh vs State of Punjab Gian Singh vs State of Punjab Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab State of Maharashtra vs Mohd Yakub S Varadarajan vs State of Madras Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab State of Tamil Nadu vs Suhas Katti Suresh vs State of Up Rupali Devi vs State of Up Alamgir vs State of Bihar Preeti Gupta vs State of Jharkhand Major Singh vs State of Punjab Satvir Singh vs State of Punjab Mukesh vs State of Nct Delhi Anurag Soni vs State of Chhattisgarh Ranjit D Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra Pramod Suryabhan vs State of Maharashtra Gurmeet Singh vs State of Punjab Mh Hoskot vs State of Maharashtra Basdev vs State of Pepsu Uday vs State of Karnataka Nanak Chand vs State of Punjab Rampal Singh vs State of Up Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chhattisgarh Sawal Das vs State of Bihar Nalini vs State of Tamil Nadu Badri Rai vs State of Bihar Ratanlal vs State of Punjab Kamesh Panjiyar vs State of Bihar Govindachamy vs State of Kerala Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of Up Dalip Singh vs State of Up Mohd Ibrahim vs State of Bihar Kameshwar vs State of Bihar Prabhakar Tiwari vs State of Up Deepchand vs State of Up Makhan Singh vs State of Punjab Varkey Joseph vs State of Kerala Sher Singh vs State of Punjab Abhayanand Mishra vs State of Bihar​ Reema Aggarwal vs Anupam Kapur Singh vs State of Pepsu​ Naeem Khan Guddu vs State Topan Das vs State of Bombay Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani vs State of Maharashtra Omprakash Sahni vs Jai Shankar Chaudhary Jabir vs State of Uttarakhand Ravinder Singh vs State of Haryana Dalip Singh vs State of Punjab Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab vs State of Maharashtra​ Parivartan Kendra vs Union of India Rajender Singh vs Santa Singh Cherubin Gregory vs State of Bihar Emperor vs Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy Navas vs State Of Kerala Reg vs Govinda
Industrial Dispute Act
Intellectual Property Rights
International Law
Labour Law
Law of Torts
Muslim Law
NDPS Act
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881
Prevention of Corruption Act
Prevention of Money Laundering Act
SC/ST Act
Specific Relief Act
Taxation Law
Transfer of Property Act
Travancore Christian Succession Act

Privacy, as a concept, extends far beyond mere seclusion; it embodies the right of individuals to make choices free from unwarranted interference. In a democratic society, privacy is the origin of personal dignity and autonomy, enabling individuals to express themselves, form relationships, and exercise freedoms without fear of intrusion. The Kharak Singh vs State of UP case challenged the extent to which state surveillance could encroach upon this fundamental right, setting the stage for subsequent debates and legal interpretations surrounding privacy in India.

The case revolved around Kharak Singh, a man subjected to police surveillance under the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations. Singh argued that the invasive surveillance measures, including nighttime domiciliary visits and constant shadowing, violated his fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court's decision in this case not only addressed the specific grievances of Singh but also laid down important principles regarding the limits of state power and the protection of individual freedoms.

Case Overview

Case Title

Kharak Singh vs State of UP

Case No

Petition No. 356 of 1961

Date of the Judgement

December 18, 1962

Jurisdiction

Supreme Court of India

Bench

Justice B.P. Sinha, Justice J.C. Shah, Justice S.J. Imam, Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, Justice J.R. Mudholkar

Appellant

Kharak Singh

Respondent

State of Uttar Pradesh

Provisions Involved

Article 21 and 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India

Historical Context & Facts of Kharak Singh vs State of UP

Kharak Singh, a resident of Uttar Pradesh, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India in 1962. His challenge was against the surveillance tactics employed by the police under the U.P. Police Regulations. Kharak Singh was previously tried in 1941 for allegedly being part of an armed robbery but was released due to insufficient evidence under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Despite his release, the U.P. Police opened a “history sheet” for him under Section 228 of the U.P. Police Regulations, classifying him under Class A of criminals under surveillance.

Classification and Surveillance

Under the U.P. Police Regulations, individuals were classified into two categories for surveillance:

  • Class A: Dacoits, burglars, cattle thieves, and railway goods wagon thieves.
  • Class B: Confirmed criminals highly likely to commit crimes other than those listed above, such as professional cheating.

Kharak Singh was placed in Class A, which subjected him to intense and intrusive surveillance. The petitioner reported being watched around the clock, with village guards and sometimes police officers arriving at his house, banging on his door, disturbing his sleep at night, and even taking him to the police station to verify his identity. Furthermore, whenever Singh traveled, he had to inform the village guard or police station of his whereabouts and destination, where the local police would then continue the surveillance.

Legal Grounds 

The U.P. Police conducted these actions under the U.P. Police Regulations, validated by Section 12 of the Police Act, 1861. This section authorized the police to carry out surveillance, maintain records of individuals' movements and activities, and conduct domiciliary visits between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. without a warrant.

Crack Judicial Services Exam with India's Super Teachers

Get 18+ 12 Months SuperCoaching @ just

₹149999 ₹55999

Your Total Savings ₹94000
Explore SuperCoaching

Issues Raised in Kharak Singh vs State of UP

Surveillance Under U.P. Police Regulations

This issue centered on the legitimacy of the surveillance tactics used by the Uttar Pradesh police, which included round-the-clock monitoring, maintaining records of movements, and conducting domiciliary visits without a warrant. The question was whether these measures violated the fundamental rights of the individual, particularly the right to privacy and personal liberty, as enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution.

Authorization of Police Excesses

The petitioner argued that the actions of the police, including the intrusive surveillance and harassment tactics, were excessive and lacked proper authorization under the U.P. Police Regulations. The court needed to determine if these actions were within the legal boundaries set by the regulations or if they constituted an abuse of power and violation of the petitioner’s rights.

Provisions Addressed in Kharak Singh vs State of UP

Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution

"All citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India."

Relevancy in the Case

Article 19(1)(d) was essential to Kharak Singh's argument, as he claimed that the surveillance measures imposed by the U.P. Police Regulations restricted his freedom of movement. The requirement to inform the village guard or police station about his travel plans and the subsequent surveillance at his destination significantly hindered his ability to move freely. The court had to determine whether these restrictions were justified and reasonable, or if they constituted an unlawful infringement of his constitutional right to freedom of movement.

Article 21 of the Constitution

"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."

Relevancy in the Case

Article 21 was the basis of the petitioner's case. Kharak Singh argued that the intrusive surveillance tactics, including round-the-clock monitoring and domiciliary visits at night, violated his right to personal liberty. He contended that these actions were conducted without any reasonable legal grounds and were based on mere suspicion. The court needed to assess whether the surveillance measures were in accordance with the procedure established by law and if they unjustly deprived Kharak Singh of his fundamental right to live with dignity and personal security.

Judgement of Kharak Singh vs State of UP

The Supreme Court largely upheld the provisions of the U.P. Police Regulations that allowed the police to prepare history sheets and track the movements of suspected individuals. However, it struck down the regulation permitting domiciliary visits, where police could knock on the accused's door at odd hours and summon him to the police station, considering it an undue harassment.

Reasoning

The court ruled that fundamental rights could only be restricted by a validly enacted law, not by mere executive orders or departmental instructions. It held that the preparation of history sheets and surveillance did not violate Articles 19(1)(d) and 21, as the surveillance was discreet, and the individual would not be aware of being monitored, thus not infringing on his fundamental rights.

Dissenting Opinion

A minority judgment dissented, arguing that constant surveillance and the preparation of history sheets violated the essence of a dignified life. It emphasized that life is more than mere physical existence, and continuous monitoring compromises the right to live with dignity, thus violating the Right to Privacy.

Unanimous Opinion on Domiciliary Visits

The court unanimously agreed that domiciliary visits by the police at odd hours violated the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21. The judgment underscored that living with dignity is an essential part of personal liberty, and state interference in an individual's private life at odd hours directly impacts this dignity, constituting a violation of Article 21.

Conclusion

The Kharak Singh vs State of UP case is a landmark in the evolution of the right to privacy in India. While the majority opinion did not initially recognize privacy as a fundamental right, it set the stage for future interpretations by acknowledging the significant intrusion of privacy through state surveillance. Justice Subba Rao's dissent, linking privacy to personal liberty, anticipated its eventual recognition as a fundamental right in later rulings like Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India. This Kharak Singh vs State of UP highlights the ongoing dialogue between individual rights and state power, emphasizing the judiciary's role in upholding democratic principles. As privacy continues to gain prominence in legal and societal contexts, the foundational arguments from Kharak Singh resonate, reflecting the continuing quest for a balance between security and personal freedom.

More Articles for Landmark Judgements

FAQs About Kharak Singh vs State of UP

The Supreme Court's conclusion in Kharak Singh vs State of UP was a split verdict. The court upheld the constitutionality of police surveillance regulations but struck down the provision for domiciliary visits at night, deeming it a violation of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Other forms of surveillance, such as shadowing, were allowed as they did not involve physical restraint.

Kharak Singh vs State of UP (1962) is a landmark case in Indian constitutional law where the Supreme Court examined whether police surveillance measures infringed upon an individual's fundamental rights. The case involved Kharak Singh challenging the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations that allowed for his constant surveillance, arguing it violated his right to personal liberty and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. While it does not explicitly mention the right to privacy, the Supreme Court has interpreted it to include the right to privacy as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty.

The first case that addressed the right to privacy in India was M. P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra (1954). In this case, the Supreme Court touched upon aspects of privacy in the context of search and seizure, although it did not explicitly recognize privacy as a fundamental right.

The latest significant judgment on the right to privacy is the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) case. In this landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India unanimously recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution, deriving it from the rights to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21.

Report An Error