Court caseAIR 1963 SC 1295

Kharak Singh was charged with dacoity but released for want of evidence. The police opened a 'history sheet' on him and placed him under surveillance under regulation 236 of the U.P. Police Regulations, which authorised secret picketing of his house, domiciliary visits at night, periodical enquiries into his habits and associations, reporting of his movements and verification of his absences. He challenged the regulation, which was an executive instruction without statutory basis, as violating Articles 19(1)(d) and 21.

The majority held that clause (b) of regulation 236 authorising domiciliary visits at night violated Article 21, because it intruded on the person's home and personal liberty without the authority of 'law' (executive regulations are not law); that part was struck down. The other measures, shadowing, picketing and reporting of movements, were upheld: freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) means physical movement, and a psychological inhibition caused by being watched is not a 'restriction'. The majority held that the right to privacy is not a guaranteed right under the Constitution. Subba Rao J, with Shah J, dissented: personal liberty in Article 21 includes privacy and the right to be free from surveillance, and the freedom of movement includes freedom from the fear of being followed; the whole regulation was void.