Search results
The petitioner--Kharak Singh -was challaned in a case of dacoity in 1941 but was released under s. 169, Criminals Procedure Code as there was no evidence against him. On the basis of the accusation made against him he states that the police have opened a "historysheet" in regard to him.
Jan 28, 2024 · The petitioner, Kharak Singh, in this case, challenged aggressive surveillance measures employed by the Uttar Pradesh Police as being violative of his Right to Privacy. The surveillance methods adopted by the police included secret picketing, domiciliary visits at night, and periodical inquiries.
The Supreme Court of India declared the relevant provisions that allowed police to make domiciliary visits to ‘habitual criminals’ or individuals likely to become habitual criminals as unconstitutional. The police would visit Kharak Singh’s house at odd hours, often waking him up from his sleep.
Kharak Singh, the petitioner, contended that the acts of the police somewhere violated or made him deprived of his inalienable rights guaranteed under third part of the constitution. In defense, state supported the validity of the act in two folds:
Nov 16, 2023 · Kharak Singh argued in Kharak Singh vs State of UP that all parts of Rule 236 broke his constitutional right ‘to freely move anywhere in India’ guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (d) and ‘personal freedom’ under Article 21.
The petitioner--Kharak Singh -was challaned in a case of dacoity in 1941 but was released under s. 169, Criminals Procedure Code as there was no evidence against him. On the basis of the accusation made against him he states that the police have opened a "history sheet " in regard to him.
the judgment of this Court in Kharak Singh vs. State of U.P., (1964) 1 SCR 332, stating that therein it has been held as under:-"Though learned counsel for the respondent started by attempting such a justification by invoking s. 12 of the Indian Police Act he gave this up and conceded that the regulations
Jul 18, 2017 · Advertisement. Tweet. It is no news that the Aadhaar Scheme that makes it mandatory for the citizens to link their PAN cards with the Aadhaar cards, along with the fact that the Constitution of India does not specifically recognise the ‘Right to Privacy’ as a fundamental right has resulted into a nationwide debate.
Sep 26, 2021 · The Case is Landmark Judgement, and is one of the first cases where the question about Privacy was considered upon by the Supreme Court. The Petitioner Kharak Singh had challenged in the Supreme Court of India the Constitutional Validity of the Chapter 22 of the UP police Regulations.
Jul 31, 2022 · Petitioner: Kharak Singh. Respondent: The State of U. P. & Ors. SUBJECT: The judgment revolves around certain aspects of individual privacy way back in 1962 when right to privacy was not a fundamental right under Article 21.
