| Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others | |
| Court: | Supreme Court of India |
| Full Name: | Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others |
| Citations: | 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332, AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 1295 |
| Judges: | N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Sinha, Syed Jaffer Imam, J.C. Shah, J.R. Mudholkar, Koka Subba Rao |
| Number Of Judges: | 6 |
| Decision By: | N. Rajagopala Ayyangar (for majority) |
| Concurring: | Bhuvneshwar P. Sinha, Syed Jaffer Imam, J.R. Mudholkar |
| Dissenting: | J.C. Shah and Koka Subba Rao |
| Subsequent Actions: | Overruled in 2017 by a nine judge bench |
| Related Actions: | |
| Opinions: | The right to privacy is not protected under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution. |
Kharak Singh vs The State Of U. P. & Others (1963 AIR 1295) is one of the earliest decisions by the Supreme Court of India dealing with Right to privacy under the Constitution of India[1] and which now stands overruled by Right to Privacy verdict.
Kharak Singh, a resident of Uttar Pradesh was arrested for dacoity in 1941 (pre-independence era) but was released for lack of evidence. The Uttar Pradesh Police subsequently opened a history sheet under Regulation 236 (Chapter XX) of the U. P. Police Regulations that permitted police officers to undertake: (i) secret picketing of the house or approaches to the house of suspects; (ii) domiciliary visits at night and periodical inquiries by officers; (iii) the reporting by constables and chaukidars of movements and absence from home;(iv) the verification of movements and absences by means of inquiry slips;(v) the collection and record on a history-
Kharak Singh challenged the constitutional validity of Chapter XX of the U. P. Police Regulations stating the provisions violated his fundamental rights under the Constitution: Article 19(1)(d) (dealing with right to freedom of movement) and Article 21 (dealing with protection of life and personal liberty).
A 6-judge bench of the Supreme Court by majority held that of the five kinds of surveillance provided under the regulations, domiciliary visits at night as unconstitutional. Two judges of the bench Koka Subba Rao and Jayantilal Chhotalal Shah delivered a dissenting judgement holding the entirety of regulation dealing with surveillance as unconstitutional.[2] The bench by majority held that right to privacy as not part of the fundamental rights.
The decision of the Kharak Singh to the extent it held right to privacy as not guaranteed under the Indian Constitution was over ruled by a nine-member bench in Right to Privacy verdict, thereby upholding the minority view of K. Subba Rao and J. C. Shah