Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) THE question arising in this case is whether a citizen is entitled to the protection of his right to privacy or, to put it more precisely, whether a citizen is entitled to approach the Court for the protection of the rights declared by Article 17 of the International Covenants of Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations at its 21st Session on 16 -12 -1966, which runs as follows: (1) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
(2.) THE question has arisen as a history -sheet -has been opened in respect of the Petitioners in exercise of the powers given in Regulation 228 of the UP Police Regulations and by reason of which the Petitioner is being put to surveillance as contemplated by Regulations 236 and onwards of the UP Police Regulations. The particular Regulation which for all practical purposes defines "surveillance" is Regulation 236 which reads: Without prejudice to the right of Superintendents of Police to put into practice any legal measures, such as shadowing in cities by which they find they can keep in touch with suspects in particular localities or special circumstances surveillance may for most practical purposes be defined as consisting of one or more of the following measures: (a) Secret picketing of the house or approaches to the houses of suspects; (b) domiciliary visits at night; (c) through periodical enquiries by officers not below the rank of sub -inspector into repute, habits, associations, income, expenses and occupation; (d) the reporting by constables and chaukidars of movements and absences from home; (e) the verification of movements and absences by means of inquiry slips; (f) the collection and record on a history sheet of all information bearing on conduct. In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of UP, 1963 ALJ 711, the Supreme Court held that the domiciliary visits at night contemplated by Clause (b) of Regulation 236 of the UP Police Regulations constituted infringement of the citizens' fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed Under Article 21 of the Constitution. So far as the surveillance contemplated by Clauses (c), (d) and (e) is concerned, the Supreme Court observed: "As already pointed out the right of privacy is not a guaranteed right under our Constitution and therefore, the attempt to ascertain the movement of an individual, which is merely a manner in which privacy is Invaded, is not an infringement of fundamental right guaranteed by part III". It is, therefore, beyond dispute that the surveillance contemplated by Clauses (c), (d) and (e) involves a procedure by which privacy of a citizen is invaded and infringed.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the opp. parties challenges the right of the Petitioners to maintain the petition as according to him no legal right of the Petitioners is being affected by the opening of the history sheet or the carrying on of the surveillance against them.;