Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

We have noticed hereinbefore that by a Resolution dated 1st April, 1963 the Government of India gave to the C.B.I. the powers of Investigation of crimes, handled by the Intelligence Bureau of the SPE and for participation as the NCB in the work connected with the INTERPOL. It is of significance to notice that C.B.I. in its website maintains that it handles all procedures related to Extradition and Issuance of Interpol Notices.

We have proceeded on the basis that the power of C.B.I. and its delegated authority namely, the State police to keep a person under surveillance ; arrest him in terms of warrant of arrest issued by a foreign country and Red Corner Notice is an absolute one. Similarly the power to find out a missing person in terms of the Yellow Notice is also absolute. However, the question in regard to the necessity of warrant being endorsed or the effect of the Red Corner Notice vis-`-vis the fundamental right of an individual in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as also his right of privacy and the loss of reputation would be dealt with at an appropriate stage.

Right to privacy is not enumerated as a Fundamental Right either in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India or otherwise. It, however, by reason of a elaborate interpretation of this Court in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and others, [(1964) 1 SCR 332 ] it was held to be an essential ingredient of `personal liberty'. This Court, however, in Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1975) 2 SCC 148] upon taking an elaborate view of the matter in regard to right to privacy vis-`-vis the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations dealing with surveillance, opined that the said regulation did not violate the "procedure established by law". However, a limited Fundamental Right to Privacy as emanating from Articles 19(a), (d) and 21 was upheld, but the same was held to be not absolute wherefor reasonable restrictions could be placed in terms of clause (5) of Article 19.

Mathew, J. stated:

"The right to privacy in any event will necessarily have to go through a process of case-by-case development. Therefore, even assuming that the right to personal liberty, the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the freedom of speech create an independent right of privacy as an emanation from them which one can characterize as a fundamental right, we do not think that the right is absolute."

The law, however, was developed by this Court in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1994) 6 SCC 632].

The law was crystallized in the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India [(1997) 1 SCC 301], holding:

"We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that right to privacy is a part of the right to "life" and "personal liberty" enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once the facts in a given case constitute a right to privacy, Article 21 is attracted. The said right cannot be curtailed "except according to procedure established by law"."