Supreme Court of India

M.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra

AIR 1954 SC 30019541 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
During an investigation into fraud by certain companies, search warrants were issued under the CrPC 1898 and a large number of documents were seized from the premises of the companies and their officers.
Issue
Whether search and seizure under the CrPC violates Article 20(3), and whether there is a fundamental right to privacy against search.
Held
A search and seizure is not compelled testimony, because the person searched is not compelled to do any act; so it does not violate Article 20(3). The Court also observed that the Constitution did not recognise a fundamental right to privacy against search. That observation was later overruled in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017).
Principle
Search and seizure under a warrant is not testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3).
Cite this

Facts

  • During an investigation into fraud by certain companies, search warrants were issued under the CrPC 1898 and a large number of documents were seized from the premises of the companies and their officers.

Issue

  1. Whether search and seizure under the CrPC violates Article 20(3), and whether there is a fundamental right to privacy against search.

Held

  • A search and seizure is not compelled testimony, because the person searched is not compelled to do any act; so it does not violate Article 20(3). The Court also observed that the Constitution did not recognise a fundamental right to privacy against search. That observation was later overruled in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017).

Cite this

Citation

M.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra AIR 1954 SC 300

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1306519/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.