GOVIND versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

GOVIND versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Regulations 855 and 856 were held to be valid laws framed under s. 46(2)(c) of the Police Act, 1961, having the force of law. The regulations, if read down to apply only to the most dangerous habitual criminals whose activities threatened public peace or security, do not unreasonably violate the right to privacy or freedom of movement, as such interference is restricted, justified by compelling public interest, and subject to reasonableness under the Constitution. Fundamental rights to privacy, if any, are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of state security and public order.

Parties
Petitioner: Govind; Respondents: State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 March 1975
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Right to Privacy, Personal Liberty Under Article 21, Freedom of Movement Under Article 19(1)(d), Police Surveillance, Validity of Police Regulations
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Right to Privacy Personal Liberty Under Article 21 Freedom of Movement Under Article 19(1)(d) Police Surveillance Validity of Police Regulations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Govind

Petitioner

State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Regulations 855 and 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations made under s. 46(2)(c) of the Police Act, 1961, violate Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi

Regulations 855 and 856 were held to be valid laws framed under s. 46(2)(c) of the Police Act, 1961, having the force of law. The regulations, if read down to apply only to the most dangerous habitual criminals whose activities threatened public peace or security, do not unreasonably violate the right to privacy or freedom of movement, as such interference is restricted, justified by compelling public interest, and subject to reasonableness under the Constitution. Fundamental rights to privacy, if any, are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of state security and public order.

Court Disposition

Writ petition dismissed.

Orders

  • Regulations 855 and 856 upheld subject to being read down as applying strictly to dangerous habitual criminals who threaten community security; surveillance measures under these regulations are valid if within constitutional limitations as interpreted by the Court.