1962 INSC 389 , [1964 ]1 SCR332 , ,MANU/SC/0085/1962
B.P. Sinha#J.C. Shah#J.R. Mudholkar#K. Subba Rao#N. Rajagopala Ayyangar#Syed Jaffer Imam#6455SC9460Judgment/OrderAIR#CriLJ#INSC#MANU#SCRN. Rajagopala Ayyangar,K. Subba Rao,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-24Kidnapping or abducting in order to subject person to grievous hurt, slavery, etc,Offences Affecting the Human Body,Wrongful restraint and encroachment on fundamental right of personal liberty and free movement within the territories of India,Wrongful restraint,Offences Affecting the Human Body,Interpretation of terms fiduciary and privacy,Right to information and medical profession,Legal and Ethical aspect of medical practice,Liberty of Thought, Expression, Belief, Faith and Worship,Preamble,Protection of Certain rights Regarding Freedom of Speech, etc.,Right to Freedom,Fundamental Rights,Protection of Certain rights Regarding Freedom of Speech, etc.,Right to Freedom,Fundamental Rights,Remedies for Enforcement of Rights Conferred by this Part Enforcement of Fundamental Rights is Guaranteed,Right to Constitutional Remedies,Fundamental Rights,Constitution of India,Medical Jurisprudence,Indian Penal Code16939,16916,16918,15794,16909 -->
MANU/SC/0085/1962
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Petition No. 356 of 1961
Decided On: 18.12.1962
Appellants: Kharak Singh Vs. Respondent: The State of U.P. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.P. Sinha, C.J., J.C. Shah, J.R. Mudholkar, K. Subba Rao, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and Syed Jaffer Imam JUDGMENT
N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.
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 respondent-State to these allegations. 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. Regulation 228 which occurs in Ch. XX of the Police Regulations defines "history-sheets" as "the personal records of criminals under surveillance". That regulation further directs that a "history-sheet" 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........