Police’s illegal entry into woman’s bedroom amounts to violation of privacy: Bombay Hign Court

The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench has held that police officers entering a woman’s bedroom at night without a lady constable and seizing her mobile phone without following the procedure under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) constitutes a violation of her right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also directed the State to pay ₹10,000 in compensation to the petitioner.

A division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita Mehta, in an order passed on July 3, stated that the petitioner was entitled to monetary compensation. The court ordered the State to pay ₹10,000 to the 26-year-old petitioner. The bench observed that while monetary compensation cannot fully redress the invasion of privacy and dignity, it would provide some measure of solace and serve as a reminder that investigative powers must be exercised in accordance with law.

The court noted that the police failed to adhere to Section 185 of the BNSS, which mandates an investigating officer to record in writing, in the case-diary, the reasons for the search. The provision also requires the recording, both audio and video, of the entire search process. Additionally, the police did not satisfy the requirements under Section 105 of the BNSS, which requires the preparation of a seizure memo in the presence of independent witnesses and the furnishing of an acknowledgement to the person from whom the property is seized. The bench observed that the statutory safeguards are intended to preserve the sanctity of the investigation and protect citizens against arbitrary deprivation of their property.

The petitioner stated that police officers from Khapa Police Station entered her house at 11.30 p.m. under the guise of searching her premises in connection with a motor vehicle accident case. She alleged that no woman officer was present when the police entered her bedroom and forcibly seized her mobile phone. She also claimed that the police did not possess a search warrant at the relevant time.

The bench observed that the right to privacy is an inseparable facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The entry into the residential premises of a citizen, particularly the bedroom occupied by a woman, without adherence to statutory safeguards and the forcible seizure of her mobile phone without following the prescribed procedure, constitutes an invasion of the petitioner’s privacy and dignity.

The explanation offered by the police that the search was undertaken in connection with an ongoing investigation was not accepted by the Judges. The bench opined that the investigating agency is expected to act within the bounds of law, and the object of investigation cannot legitimise an illegal search or seizure. The procedural requirements enacted by the legislature are intended to ensure fairness, accountability, and transparency and cannot be dispensed with on the mere plea of investigation.

With these observations, the bench disposed of the criminal writ petition. Advocate SI Ghatte appeared for the petitioners, while Additional Public Prosecutor PC Bawankule represented the State.