SHYAMBABU VERMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The term 'Liberty' as used in the Constitutional provisions connotes something more than mere freedom from physical restraints or the chains of a prison. Charles Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, while dealing with the concept of right to privacy though that law should provide both a criminal and private law remedy to protect man's 'inviolate personality' against the intrusive behaviour of State. Once a civilization has made a distinction between the 'outer' and the 'inner' man, between the life of the soul and the life of the body, between the spiritual and the material, between the sacred and the profane, between the realm of God and the realm of Caesar, between Church and State, between rights inherent and inalienable and rights that are in the power of government to give and takeaway between public and private, between society and solitude, it becomes impossible to avoid the idea of privacy by whatever name it may be called -- the idea of a private space in which man may become and remain himself. See privacy and the law. A philosophical prelude by Milton R. Konvitz in 31 Law and Contemporary Problems (1966) p. 272, 273.

(2.) The Supreme Court of India took notice of what was said by the above authors in Govind v. State of M. P. AIR 1975 SC 1378 : (1975 Cri LJ 1111) and observed that there can be no doubt that the makers of our Constitution wanted to ensure conditions favourable to the pursuits of happiness and realise the significance of man, spiritual nature of his feelings, and of his intellect and that only a part of the pain, pleasure satisfaction of life can be found in material things and therefore, they must be deemed to have conferred upon the individual as against the government a sphere where he should be left alone. Reference was made again to privacy, freedom and respect for persons by Benn, in a book J. Peennock and J. Chapman, Eds., Privacy, Nomos, XIII, I, 15-16, to the following excerpt :

(3.) Coming to the facts of the case. The petitioner claims to be a businessman and an Income-tax assessee. He was involved in an offence under S. 412 of the Indian Penal Code but was acquitted. His grievance is that police is keeping surveillance over him and a history sheet of his is being maintained at police station Sabalgarh. This assertion that history sheet has been opened and this is of Category 'B' has not been denied by the State. It is stated that even after order of acquittal was passed with regard to the case under S. 412 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has not abandoned his Criminal traits and propensities. The allegation that the petitioner is called to police station Sabalgarh repeatedly has however been denied. The State has ultimately made a prayer that the petition be dismissed.