CASE: MP Sharma and others v Satish Chandra
PARTIES TO THE CASE:
M.P. SHARMA AND OTHERS ....... PETITIONER Vs.
SATISH CHANDRA ........ RESPONDENT
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DELHI,
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
NATWARLAL H. AIYYAR,
T.L. VENKATARAMA MAHAJAN,
MEHAR CHAND (CJ) MUKHERJEA,
SUDHI RANJAN BOSE,
Constitution of India, arts. 19(1)(f) and 20(3)-
Search warrant issued under s. 96(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898)- Whether ultra, vires art. 19(1) (f)- Search and seizure of 1078 documents under ss. 94 and 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Whether compelled production thereof- Within the meaning of art. 20(3).
Two years after The Dalmia Group liquidated in 1952, Ms Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd was squared by the investigating agencies.
The FIR was lodged in November 1953, informing the esteemed authority of some malpractices being undertaken by the 'group' on fire. Consequently, as many as 34 premises owned by M/s Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. were ransacked by the police in the endeavour to unveil the truth beheld.
The FIR even burst about the internal affairs of the company and the actual state of financials if the company is not being transparent to the stakeholders, violating their right to information and making them and their hard earned money vulnerable to the whims and fancies of the owners of the group.
The complaint prayed for the records to be made available to the public, specifically to the stakeholders and unmasking the wolf in sheep's skin.
The defendant, on the other hand, argued that, if the order favours the petitioner, it would be violative of article 19(1) (f) and 20 (3), embracing all the citizens of India to buy, sell, acquire, and dispose off the land. Thus, the prayer asked for the Right of Privacy to be given a fundamental status in the Country and the defendant be relieved of the charges.
The court analysed the scenario in a mature way and turned down the defendant. Judgment found it's closure in the observation that making such a law would be one in haste and would be strained. It was too vulnerable to misuse if not made to fit each and every class of society which was in itself a task impossible.
The bench, in its judgement, further said that a power of search and seizure is, in any system of jurisprudence, an overriding power of the State for the protection of social security and that power is necessarily regulated by law. Thus there is no justification in making right to privacy a fundamental right when the Constitution makers have not added it into the constitution of the country.
I support the judgement of the bench and agree with their view that making such a law in haste would create more complications and the case in itself doesn't provide enough justification to result in the making of ‘Right to Privacy,’ a fundamental right.