Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963)

Issues

• Is Chapter XX of the UP Police Regulations valid under the Constitution?
• Do night home checks (domiciliary visits) violate Article 21?
• Do surveillance measures restrict speech and movement under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(d)?

Rules

Article 21: Personal liberty can be curtailed only by a valid law. Intrusions like night visits need clear legal backing.

Article 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(d): Surveillance chills expression and restricts free movement. Any limit must be reasonable and lawful.

Privacy (1963 view): The majority did not recognise privacy as a fundamental right. Later, Puttaswamy overruled this.

Facts (Timeline)

Arguments

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that domiciliary visits are unconstitutional. They intrude upon personal liberty under Article 21 and were not backed by a valid law. Executive regulations alone are not “law” for limiting fundamental rights.

The Court also noted that the surveillance scheme affected expression and movement. However, the majority did not accept a stand-alone fundamental right to privacy at that time (later corrected in Puttaswamy).

Ratio

• Article 21 requires a valid law: Executive instructions are not enough to invade liberty.
• Domiciliary visits invalid: Night home checks are an excessive intrusion.
• Chilling effect: Surveillance pressures speech and movement.

Why It Matters

This case signalled early judicial worry about state surveillance. It protected the home from night intrusions and laid groundwork that later helped the Court in Puttaswamy recognise privacy as a fundamental right.

Key Takeaways

• Domiciliary visits under UP Police Regulations are unconstitutional.
• Limits on liberty need a valid law, not just executive rules.
• Surveillance can chill speech and restrict movement.
• Privacy not recognised then, but later affirmed in Puttaswamy.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Home First, Law Next.”

1. Home: Night visits invade personal space.
2. Law: Any intrusion needs a valid law.
3. Next: This path led to privacy in Puttaswamy.

IRAC Outline

Glossary

Domiciliary Visit

Police entering or checking a home at night to watch a person.

History-Sheet

A record kept by police about a person’s supposed criminal tendencies.

Chilling Effect

When people self-censor due to fear of punishment or watch.

Executive Instructions

Rules made by the executive, not by Parliament; weaker basis to limit rights.

FAQs

Related Cases

• Gobind v. State of M.P. (1975) — early steps toward recognising privacy.
• PUCL v. Union of India (1997) — phone tapping safeguards.
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) — privacy is a fundamental right; overrules earlier view.