Right Against Unreasonable Search And Seizure
Right Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure in India
The Right Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This right protects individuals from arbitrary intrusion by the state, especially in cases of property searches, confiscation of goods, and personal belongings.
It is closely related to due process and personal privacy.
1. Legal Framework
Constitution of India
Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty; includes protection from arbitrary search and seizure.
Article 19(1)(g): Right to practice any profession or carry on business; search and seizure should not arbitrarily interfere with property rights.
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
Sections 94, 95, 100: Conditions for search and seizure in criminal cases.
Searches require warrant or reasonable cause, except in exceptional situations.
Evidence Act
Seized property or evidence must comply with legal procedures, otherwise it may be inadmissible.
2. Key Principles
Search must be reasonable: It should be authorized by law and necessary.
Warrant requirement: Except in urgent cases, a search should be conducted with judicial approval.
Protection against arbitrary seizure: State authorities cannot seize property without legal justification.
Proportionality: Measures should be proportionate to the objective of investigation.
3. Landmark Case Laws
Case 1: Kharak Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962)
Facts: Kharak Singh’s house was repeatedly entered by police for surveillance without proper notice.
Issue: Whether state intrusion violated personal liberty.
Decision: Supreme Court held that repeated surveillance and house entry without procedure violated Article 21.
Significance: Recognized privacy and security of home as part of personal liberty.
Case 2: Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by authorities without prior notice.
Issue: Whether arbitrary action violated Article 21.
Decision: Court expanded Article 21, stating that any procedure depriving personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable.
Significance: Laid down principle of due process; arbitrary search or seizure is unconstitutional.
Case 3: A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950)
Facts: Preventive detention under old laws involved searches of detainees’ property.
Decision: Initially restrictive interpretation of Article 21; later overruled by Maneka Gandhi case.
Significance: Highlighted evolution from formalistic approach to substantive due process, including protection from unreasonable search.
Case 4: Selvi & Ors vs. State of Karnataka (2010)
Facts: The issue was use of narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain mapping for investigation.
Decision: Supreme Court held involuntary tests amounted to violation of Article 21.
Significance: Extended protection to mental privacy, showing unreasonable “search” can also include mind or body intrusion.
Case 5: State of Maharashtra vs. Indian Hotel & Restaurants Association (1990s)
Facts: Authorities conducted surprise inspections and confiscated stock without following procedure.
Decision: Court ruled that arbitrary inspections and seizure violated Articles 19(1)(g) and 21.
Significance: Reinforced procedural safeguards in administrative searches.
Case 6: R. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) – Auto Shankar Case
Facts: Police seized personal notes and diaries of the journalist.
Decision: Court held that seizure without authorization violated right to privacy and Article 21.
Significance: Expanded scope of unreasonable search and seizure to include personal records.
Case 7: DK Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1997)
Facts: DK Basu challenged custodial deaths and arbitrary police actions.
Decision: Supreme Court issued guidelines for arrests, detention, and search of persons to prevent violation of Article 21.
Significance: Set detailed safeguards for search, detention, and seizure, emphasizing protection from arbitrary state action.
4. Key Takeaways
Right to privacy and personal liberty: Intrusions must comply with law.
Search and seizure must be reasonable, just, and fair.
Judicial oversight: Warrants or lawful authorization are mandatory except in emergencies.
Procedural safeguards are essential: DK Basu guidelines illustrate protection during police searches.
Expansion to mental and informational privacy: Modern jurisprudence (Selvi vs. Karnataka, Rajagopal vs. TN) includes bodily and personal records protection.
RELATED Blog
comments