GOVIND versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

(jOVIND

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. March 18, 1975

[K. K. MATHEW, v. R. KRISHNA IYER AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.]

Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, 855 and 856, made under s. 46 (2) (c) o/ Police Act, 1961--.// violative of Arts. 19(i)(d) and 21.

The petitioner in petition under Art. 32, challenged the validity of Regula-tions 855 and 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations made by the Govern· ment under the Police Act, 1961. Regulation 855 provides that where on infor· mation the District Superintendent believes that particular individual is leadin~ life of crime, and his conduct shows determination to lead life of crime that individual's name may be ordered to be entered in the surveillance register, and he would be placed under regular surveillance. Regulation 856 provides that such surveillance, inter a/ia may consist of don\iciliary visits both by day and night at frequent but irregular intervals. It was contended· that, (I) the Regula· tions were not framed under any provision of the Police Act, and (2) even if they were framed under s. 46(2) of the Police Act, the provisions regarding dpmiciliary visits offended Arts. 19(1 )(d) and 21.

Dismissing the petition,

HEW: (1) The Regulations were framed under s. 46(2)(c) of the Police Act al)d have the force of law. The paragraph provides that the State Govern-ment may make rules generally for giving effect to the provisions of the Act; and one of the objects of the Act is to prevent the commission of crimes. The pr0vi-sion regarding domiciliary visits i~ intended to prevent commission of offences, because, their obiect is to see if the individual is at home or gone out of it for commL'lSion of offences. [949 F·G, H-950 A]

(2) (a) Too broad definition of privacy will raise serious questions about the propriety of ,.idicial reliance on right that is not explicit in the Constitution. The right to privacy will, therefore, necessarily. have to go through process ('f case by case devdopment. Hence, assuming that the right to personal liberty, the right to move freely throughout India and the freedom of speech create an indel'endent fundamental right of privacy as an emanation from them it could not he absolute. It must be suhjcct to restriction on the basis of coml)elling pul'· lie interest. Bl.'.t the law infringing it must satisfy the compelling state interest test. [954 D..C, H-955 B; 956 B-C]

(b) Oras:ic inroads directly into privacy and indirectly into fundamental right will b~ made if the ltegulations were to be read too widely. When there are two int:n>retHtions. one w:<le and unconstitutional, and the other narrower but within constitutional bounds. the Court will read down the over flowing expressiom to make them valid .. [955 D·E; 956 G]

(c) A~ the Regulations have force of law, the petitioner's fundamental right 1mdcr Art. 21 is not violated. [955 HJ

(d) It cannot be said that surveillance by domiciliary visits would always he an unrc~sonablc re~triction upon ihe right of privacv. It is onlv persons who are snsoected to be habitnal criminals and those who are determined to k:.id crimiml life that arc subiecte<l to surveillance. If 'crime' in this context is con· fined to such acts as involve public peace or secmitv, the law imposing such reasonable restriction mus! be urheld as valid. [956 C-D, F-Hl

[Legality apart, these regufotions ill-accord with the essence of personal free-doms and the State will do well to revise these old Po11ce Regulations. Domici· liarv 'isits and nirketing bv the police should he reduced to the clearest cases of community security and should no~ become routine follnw un at the end of conv!ction or release from jail, or at the whim of police officer.] (957 A-CJ

Kharak Singh v. The State of U.P. & Ors., [1964] 1 S.C.R. 332, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381, U.S. 479, 510; Jane Roe v. Henry Wade, 410 U.S. 113 a11d Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438. 471. referred to.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 72 of 1970.

Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

A. K. Gupta and R. A. Gupta for the Petitioner.

Ram Punjwani, H. S. Parihar and /. M. Shroff, for the Res· pondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MATHEW, J. The petitioner is citizen of India. He challenges the validity of Regulations 855 and 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations pmporting to be made by the Government of Madhya Pradesh under s.46(2)(c) of the Police Act, 1961.

The petitioner alleges that several fu.lse cases have been filed against him in criminal courts by the police but that he was acquitted in all but two cases. He says that on the basis that he is habitual criminal, the police have opened history sheet against him and that he has been put under surveilla,nce.

The petitioner says that the police are making domiciliary visits both by day and by night at frequent intervals, that they are secretly picketing his house and the approaches to his -house, that his move-ments arc being watched by the pate! of the village and that when the police come to the village for any purpose, he is called and harassed with the result that his reputation has sunk I-ow in the estimation of his neighbours. Tue petitioner submits that whenever he leaves the village for another place he has to report to the Chowkidar of the village or to the police station about his departure and that he has to give further informatron about his destination and the period with-in which he would return. The petitioner contends that these actions or the police are violative of the fundamental right guaranteed to him under Articles 19(1 )( d) and 21 of the Constitution, and he prays for declaration that Regnlations 855 and 856 are void as contravening his fundamental rights under the above Articles.

In the return filed, it is stated that "the petitioner has managed to commit many crimes during the period 1960 to 1969. In the year 1962 the petitioner was convicted in one case under Section 452 IPC and was fined Rs. 100/- in default rigorous imprisonment of two months and in another case he was convicted under Section 456 IPC and was fined Rs. 50/- and in default rigorous imprisonment of one nronth. In the year 1969 the petitioner was convicted under Section 55/109 Cr.P.C. and was bound over for period of one year by SDM, Jatara. In the year 1969, the petitioner e:ot cornoounded case pending :igainst him under Section 325/147 /324 IPC. Similar-ly, he also got another case under Section 341/324 IPC compounded."

In Kha~ak Singh v. The siate of U.P. and Others(') this C~mrt . had occasion to consider, the validity of Regulation 236 of the U.P. Police Regulations which is in pari materia with Regulation 856 here. There it was held by majorily that regulation 236(b). providin,g for · domiciliary visits was unconstitutional for the reason that it abridged .. . .. the fundamental right of person under Article 21 and since Regula- . tion 236(b) did not have the force of Jaw, the regulation was declared · . bad. The other provisions of the regulation were held to be consti-tutional. The decision that the. regulation in question there was not ' law was based upon concession made on behalf of the State of · U.P. that the. U.P. Police Regulations were not framed under any of the provisions of the Police Act.

The 'petitioner submitted that as: the regulations. inquestion here · were also not framed under any provision of the Police Act, the pro- · visions regarding domiciliary visits ·in. regulations 855. and 856 must · be declared bad and that even if the regulations were framed .under s.46(2)(d) of the Police· Act, they offended the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19(l)(d) as well as under Article 21 of . the Constitution. ·

So far as the first contentioll, is concerned, we are of the view : that the rerulalions were framed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh under s.46(2) (c) of the Police Act. Section 46(2) states that the State ·Government may,· from time to time, by notification in the. official gazette, make rules consistent with the Act-

. ''(c) generally, for giving effect io the provisions of this .. Act."

The petitioner contended that· rules cari be framed by the State Government under s.46(2)(c) only for giving effect to the provisions of the Act and that the provisions in Regulation· 856 for domiciliary visits and other matters are notfor the purpose of giving effect to. any of the provisions of the Police Act and therefore regulation 856 is ultra vire~. · . . · , _ •

We do not think that. the contention is right. There .can be no doubt that one of the objects of the Police Act is to prevent commis-sion of offences. The preamble to the Act states :

"Whereas it is expedient to re-organise the police and to make it more efficient instrument for the prevention and detection of crime.". ·

And, s. 23 of the Act (so far as it is material) reads:

"It shall be the duty of every police officer .. to prevent the commission of offences and public nuisances.; . ". . . ' -. ,.

. -. ,. We think that the provision in regulation 856 fur domiciliary vi~its and other actions by th~ police is intended to prevent the com-. mission of offences. Thi? object of domiciliary viSits is to see that

(I) [1964] I S.C.R. 332.

the person subjected to su~veillance is in his home and has not goll:e out of it for commission of any offence. We are therefore of opi-nion that Regulations 855 and 856 have the force of law.

The next question is whether the provisions of regulation 856 offend any of the fundamental rights of the petitioner.

In Kharak Singh v. The State of U.P. & Others (supra) the majo-rity said that 'personal liberty' in Article 21 is comprehensive ~ in-clude all varieties of rights which go to make up the personal liberty of man other than those dealt with in Article 19(1)(d). According to the Court, while Article 19(l)(d) deals with the particular types of personal freedom, Article 21 takes in and deals with the residue. The Court said :

"We have already extracted passage from the judgment · of Fh:ld J. in Munn v. Illinois (1877) 94 U.S. 113, 142, where the learned Jud_ge pointed out that 'life' in the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution correspond-ing to Art. 21 means not merely the right to the continu-ance of person's animal existence, but right to the ,x:•s-scssion of each of his organs-his arms and legs etc. We do not entertain any doubt that the word 'life' in Art. 21 bears the same signification. Is then the word 'personal liberty' to be construed as excluding from its purview an invasion on the part of the police of the sanctity of man's bome and an intrusion into his personal security and his right to sleep which is the normal comfort and dire neces-sity for human existence even as an animal? It might not be in appropriate to refer here to the words of th() preamble to the Constitution that it is designed to "assure the dignity ef the individual" and therefore of those cherish-ed human value as the means of ensuring his full develop-ment and evolution. We are referring to these objectives of the framers merely to drav: attention to the concepts underlying the constitution which would point to such vital words as 'personal liberty' having to be construed in reasonable manner and to be attributed that sense which wou~d promote and achieve those objectives and by no means to stretch ·the meaning of the phrase to square with any prnconceived notions or doctrinaire constitutional theories."

The Court then quoted passage from the judgment of Frankfurter J. in Wolf v. Co'Vrado(') to the effect that the security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police is basic to free society and that the knock at the door, whether by day or by night, as prelude to search, without authority of law but solely on the ia.uthority of the police, did not need 'the commentary of recent h_isfory to b~ con?emned .as inconsistent wi'.h the c?nception of human nghts enshrined m the history and the basic constitutional documents of English-speakinP, peoples. The Court then said that at Common Law every man's house is his castle and that embodies an abiding

(I) f1949J 338 U.S. 25.

princ~fo transcending mere protection of property rights and ex-pounds concept of 'personal liberty' which does not rest upon any· element of feudalism or any theory of freedom which has ceased to exist. The Court ultimately came to the conclusion that regulation 236(b) which authorised domiciliary visits was violative of Article 21 and "as there is no 'law' on the basis of which the same could be justified, it must be struck down as. unconstitutional". The Court was of tlie view that the other provisions in regulation 236 were not bud as no right of privacy has been guaranteed by the Constitution.

Subba Rao, J. writing for the minority was of the opinion that the word 'liberty' in Article. 21 was c0mprehensivc enough to include privacy also. He said that although it is true our Constitution does not expressly declare right to privacy as fundamental right, but the right is an essential ingredient of personal liberty, that in the iast resort, perso,1's house where he lives with his family, is his ,castle', that nothmg is more deleterious to man's physical happiness and health than calculated interference with his privacy and that all the acts of surveillance under Regulation 236 infringe the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution. And, as regards Article 19(1)(d), he was of the view that that right also was violated. He said that the right under that sub-Article is not mere freedom to move without physical obstruction and observed that movement under the scrutinizing gaze of the policemen cannot be free movement, that the freedom of movement in cl. (d) therefore must be movement in free country, i.e., in country where he can do whatever he likes, speak to whomsoever· he wants, meet people r· of his own choice without any apprehension, subject of course to the ' law 0f social control and that person under the shadow 'Of surveillance is Gcrtainly deprived of this freedom. He concluded by sayin~ that surveillance by domiciliary visits and other acts is •an abridgement of the fundamental right iiuaranteed under Article 19 (l)(d) and under Article 19(1) (a). He however did not specificallv consider whether regulation 236 could be justified as reasonable restriction in public interest falling within Arti::le 19(5).

It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that right to privacy is itself fundamental rh!ht and that that ri!!ht is violated as regulation 85 6 provides. for domiciliary visits and other incursions into it. The qu~~tion whether right to privacy is itself fundamental right flowing . from the other fun:iamental rights guaranteed to citizen under Part Ill is not easy of S'Olution.

In Griswold v. Connecticut(!), Connecticut statute made the use of contraceptives criminal offence. The executive and medical directors of the Planned Parenthood LeaoUe of Connecticut were con-victed in the Circuit <Xlurt on chame of havinQ violated the statute as accessories by ,givinQ information. instructhn and advice to mar-ried persons as to -the means of preventing conception. The appellate Division of the Circuit Court affirmed and its judgment was affirmed by the Suoreme Court of Errors of Connecticut. On appeal the

Supreme Court of the United States reversed. In an opinion by Douglas, J., expressing view-of five members of the Court, it was held that the statute was invalid as an unconstitutiona! invasion of the r!gh, · of privacy of married persons. . He said. that the right of freedom of speech press inc1udes not only the right to utter or to priot but also . the right to disribute, the right to receive, the· right to read and that without those peripheral rights the specific right would be less secure and that likewise, the other specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help g.ve them lif~ and substance, that the various guarantees create zones of pri· vacy, and that protection against all governmental invasion "of the sanctity of man's home and the privacies of life" was fundamental. He further said that the inquiry is whether right involed "is of such · character that it cannot be denied without violating those 'funda-mental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions' and that · 'privacy is fundamental personal right, emanating from the totality of the constitutional scheme under which we (Americans) live'."

In his dissenting opinion, Mr. Justice Black berated the majority for discovering and applying constitutional right to privacy. His reading of the Constitution failed to uncover any provision or provi· sions forbidding the passage of anl law that might abridge the 'privacy' of individuals. . . . .

His

·In Jane Roe v. Henry Wade(>), an unmarried pregnant woman who wished to terminate her · pregnancy by abortion instituted an . action· · in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking declaratory judg· ment that the Texas criminal abortion statutes, which prohibited abor· tions except with respect to those procured or attempted by medical ·advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, were uncon-stitutional. The Supreme Court said that although the Constitution of the U.S.A. does not explicitly mention any right of privacy, the United States Supreme Court recognizes that right of personal pri· v:u;y, or guarantee of certain areas or zones of . privacy, does exist under the Constitution, and "that the roots of t'12t righ• may be found in the First Amendment, in the. Fourth· 11nd Fl( Amendments. in tho penumbras of the Bill of Rights, in the Nin~h Amendment, and in the· concept of liberty guaranteed by the firs• section of the' Fourteenth Amendment" and that the ''right to privacy is not absolute."

··The usual .starting ·point in any discu_ssion of the growth' of legal concept of pnvacy, thou~h not necessanly the correct one is the famous article, "The Right to Privacy" by Charles Warren ai:.d Louis D. Brandeis(•) .. · What was truly creative in the article was their insistence that privacy,-the right to be let alone-was an interest · ~at man should be able to :issert directlv and not derivatively from his efforts to protect other mterests. To protect man's "inviolate H. personality" against . the intrusive behaviour so increasingly evident

(I) 410 U.S. 113.

(2) See 4 Harvard Law Rev. 193.

in their time, Warren a;id Brandeis thought that the law should provide·· . both criminal and private law remedy. "Once civilization has made distinction between the 'outer' and the 'inner' man, between the life of the soul and the life of the body, between the spiritual and the ma~crial, between the sacred and the profane, between the· realm of God and the realm of Ca'!Sar, between Church and state, between rights inherent and inalienable and rights that are in the power of . government to give and take away, between public and private, bet-ween society ancl solitude, it becomes impossible to avoid. the idea of privacy by whatever name it may be called- the idea of 'private space in which man may beccme and remain 'himselr "([1]). .

There can be no doubt that the mnkers .of our Constitution wlUlted to ensure condi•ions favourable to the pursuit of happiness. They certainly realized as Brandeis, J. said in his dissent in Olmstead v. United State([2]), the significance of man's spiritual nature. of his feelings and of. his intellect and that only part of the pain, pleasure, satisfication of life can be found in material things and · therefore they must be deemed to have conferred upon the individual as ap.imt the government sphere where he should be let alone.

"The liberal individualist tradition has stressed, in particular, three personal ideals, to each of which corresponds ·range of 'private affairs'. The first is the ideal of personal relations; the second, the · Lockean ideal of the politically free man in minimally regulated society; the third, tlie Kantian. ideal of the morally autonomous man, acting on principles that he accepts as rational"(').

There can be no doubt that privacy-dignity claims deserve to be examined with care and to be denied only when an important conn- . tervai!in~ interest is shown to be superior. If. the Court does find that claimed rieht is entitled to protection as fundamental privacy· · right, law in:fringing it must satisfy the compelling state interest test. . Then the question would be whether state interest is of such . paramount impartance as would justify an infringement of the rieht. Obviouslv, if the enforcement of morality were held to be compell-ing as well as permissible state interest, the characterization of claimed riehts as fundamental orivacv rieht would be of far less significance. The ques•ion whether enforcement of morality is state interest sufficient to iu<>ifv •he infringement of fundamental privacy right need not be considered for the oumme of this case and therefore we refuse to enter the controversial thicket whether enforcement of morality is function of state.

Individual autonomy, perhaos the central concern ot any svstem of limited government, is protected in part under our Constitution by

(I) see "Prl"va.;-and the Law: philo•ophfcal pre!ude" by Milton R. Kon• vitz in 31 Law & Contemporary Problem• (1966) p. 272, 273. (2) 277 u. s. 438, 471. .. _ ....

(3) sea B"!t"'U19 ••Privacy, Freedom and Respect for Persons" in 1. Pennock 4. J. Chapmm,Eds .• Priv~ Nomo' XIII, I, 15·16.- :: ~

explicit constitutional guaranteea. "In the application of the Cons_-titution our contemplation cannot only be of what has been but :-vhat . may be." Time works changes and brings into existence new cond1t1ons. Subtler and far reaching means of invadings privacy will make it pos-sible to be heard in the street what is whispered in the closet. Yet, too broad definition of privacy raises serious questions about the proprieny of judicial reliance on right that. is not explicit in the Cons· titution. Of course, privacy primarily concerns the ind.ividuals. It therefore relates to and overlaps with the concept of liberty. The most serious advocate of privacy must confess that there are serious prob1ems of defining the essence and scope of the right. Privacy interest in autonomy must also be placed in the context of other ri&hts and values.

Any right to privacy must encompass and protect the personal intimacies of the home, the family marriage, motherh'aod, procreation and child rearing. Tliis catalogue approach to the question is obviously not as instructive as it does not give analytical picture of that distin· tive characteristics of the right of privacy. Perhaps, the only sugges-tion that can be offered as unifying principle underlying the concept has been the assertion that claimed right must be fundamental ri~J1t implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.

Rights and freedoms of citizens are set forth in the Constitution in order to guarantee that the individual, his personality and those things stamped with his person1lity shall be free from official inter-ference except where reasonable basis for intrusion exists. "Liberty against government" phrase coined by Professor Corwin expre .~.cs this idea forcefutly. In this sense, many of the fundamental rights of citizens can be described as contributing to the right to privacy.

As Ely says: "There is nothing to prevent one from using the word 'privacy' to mean the freed:im to live one's life without governmental interference. But the Court obviously does not so use the term. Nor could it, for such right is at stake in every case"('•)

There are two possible theories for protecting privacy of home. The first is that activities in the home harm others only to the extent that they cause offence resulting from the mere thought that individuals mi1?ht he engaginv. in such activities and that such' hann' is not cons-titutionally protectible by the state. The second is that individuals need plate of sanctuary where they can be free from societal control. The importance of such sanctuary is that individuals can drop the mask. desist for while from orojecting on the world the ima~e they want to be accepted a~ themselves, an image that may reflect ·the values of their peers rather than the realities of their natures([2]). .

The right to privacy in any event will necessarily have to go through process of case-1:_Y-case development. Therefore, even assuming

(l) s~ "The Wages of Crying Wolf: Comment on Roe v. Wade, 82 Yale L. J. 920, 932.

(2) see 26Standford Law Rev. 1161 at 1187.

th~t 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 .charac· terize as fundamental right, we do not think that the right is abso· Jute.

The European Convention on Human Rights, which came Into force on 3-9-1953, represents valiant attempt to tackle the new problem. Article 8 of the Convention is worm citing : (1[1]).

"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

"2. There shall be P.o interference by public authority with the exercise of this right except such as i;; in accordance with the law and is necessary in democratic society in the interests of national security, public safet_y or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protecti,111 of health or morals or for the protection, of the rights ar.d frecd•)ms of others."

Having reached this conclusion, we arc satisfied that drastic in-roads directly into the privacy and indirectly into the fundamental rights, of citizen will be made if Regulations 855 and 856 were to be rc;;d widely. To interpret the rule in harmo:1y with the Constitution is therefore necessary and canalisation of the powers vested in the police by the two Regulations earlier read become3 necessary, if they are to be saved at all. Our foundiag fathers were 1horoughly opposed to Police Raj even as our history of the s!ruggle_for free-dom has borne eloquent testimony to it. The relevant Article§. •Jf the Constitution we have adverted to earlier, behove us therefore to narrow down the scope for play of the two Regulations. We proceed to give direction and restriction to the application of the. said regu-F lations with the caveat that if any action were taken beyond the boundaries so set, the citizen will be entitled to attack such action as unconstitutional and void.Depending on the character and antecedents of the person subjec-ted to surveillance as also the objects and the limitation under which surveillance is made, it cannot be said surveillance by domiciliary visits would always be unreasonable restriction U]'.Y'.ln the right of privacy. Assuming that the fundamental rights explicitly guaranteed to citi-zen have penumbra! zones and that the ril!ht to privacy is itself fundamental right, that fundamental right must be subject to restric-tion on t'1e ba<!s of comnell'"!! n11b.ic in•P.re<t. A< r<::r!ulation 856 has the force of law, it cannot be said that the fundamental ri!>:ht -of. the petitioner under Article 21 has been vi·olated by the provisions contained in it : for, what is guaranteed under that Article is that no person shall he depri\l_Cd of his life or personal liberty except by the

(I) see "Privacy and Human Rights", ed. A.H. Robertson, p. 176.

procedure established by 'law'. We think that the procedure is reasonable having regard to the provisions of Regulations 853 (c) and 857. Even if we h:old that Article 19(1)(d) guarantees to citizen right to privacy in his movement as an emanation from that Article and is itself fundamental right, the . question Will arise whether regulation 856 is law imposing reasonable restriction in public interest on the freedom of movement falling within' Article 19 (5); or, even if it be assumed that Article 19(5) does not apply in terms, as the. right to privacy of movement cannot be absolute, law imposing reasonable restriction upon it for compelling interest of State must be uphr.ld as valid.

Under clause (c) of Regulation 853, it is only persons who are suspected to be habitual criminals who will be subjected to domici-liary visits. Regulation 857 provides as follows :

"A comparatively short period of surveillance, if effecti· vely maintained, should suffice either to show that the sus-picion of criminal livelihood was unfounded, or to furnish evidence justifying criminal prosecution, or action under the security sections. District Superintendents and their assistance should go carefully through the histories of per .. sons under surveillance during their inspections, · and remove from the register the names of such as appear to be earning an honest livelihood. Their histories will there upon bCl closed and surveillance discontinued. In the case of person. under surveillance who has been lost sight of and is sti11 untraced, the name will continue on the register for as long as the District Superint ..ndent considers necessary."

Surveillance is also conhned to the limited class of citizens wh<> are determined to lead criminal life or whose antecedents would reasonably lead to the conclusion that they will lead such life.

When them are two interpretations, one wide and unconstitutional, the other narrower but within constitutional bounds, this Court will read down the overflowing expressions to make them valid. So read, the two regulatjons. are more restricted than counsel fGr the petitioner sought to impress upol) us.. Regulation 8$5, in our view, empowers surveillance only of persons· against whom reasonable materials exis.t to induce the opinion that they show determination, to lead life of crime-crime in this context being confined to such as involve public peace or securilly only and if they are dangerous security risks. Mere convictions in criminal cases where nothing gravely imperilling safety of

iiociety cannot be regarded as warranting surveillance und~r this Regu-lation. Similarly, domiciliary visits and picketing by the police should be reduced to the clearest cases of dariger to community secu-rity and. not routine follow-up at the end of conviction or release from prison or at the whim of police officer. In truth, legality apart, these regulations ill-accord with the essence of personal free-B doms and the State will do well to revise these old police regulations verging perilously near unconstitutionality.