KHARAK SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenges the constitutional validity of Ch. XX of the U. P. police Regulations and the powers conferred upon police officials by its several provisions on the ground that they violate the right guaranteed to citizens by Arts. 19 (1) (d) and 21 of the Constitution.

(2.) To appreciate the contention raised it is necessary to set out the facts averred on the basis of which the fundamental right of the petitioner is said to be violated, as well as the answers by the respondents-State to these allegations. The petitioner - Kharak Singh was challenged in a case of dacoity in 1941 but was released under S. 169, Criminal 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. Regulation 228 which occurs in Ch. XX of the Police Regulation defines "history-sheets" as "the personal records of criminals under surveillances". That regulation further directs that "history-sheets" should be opened only for persons who are or are likely to become habitual criminals or the aiders or abettors of such criminals. These history-sheets are of two classes: Class A for dacoits, burglars, cattle thieves, and railway goods-wagon thieves, and class B for those who are confirmed and professional criminals who commit crimes other than dacoity, burglary, etc. like professional cheats. It is admitted that a history-sheet in class A has been opened for the petitioner and he is therefore "under surveillance".

(3.) The petitioner describes the surveillance to which he has been subjected thus : Frequently the chaukidar of the village and some times police constables enter his house, knock and shout at his door, wake him up during the night and thereby disturb his sleep. On a number of occasions they have compelled him to get up form his sleep and accompany them to the police station to report his presence there. When the petitioner leaves his village for another village or town, he has to report to the chaukidar of the village or at the police station about his departure. He has to give them information regarding his destination and the period within which he would return. Immediately the police station of his destination is contacted by the police station of his departure and the former puts him under surveillance in the same way as the latter. There are other allegations made about misuse or abuse of authority by the chaukidar or the police officials but these have been denied, and we do not consider them made out for the purposes of the present petition. If the officials out- step the limits of their authority they would be violating even the instructions given to them, but it looks to us that these excesses of individual officers which are wholly unauthorised could not be complained of in a petition under Art. 32.