Logo
Logo
DPDPA Sections DPDPA Rules BLOGS CASE LAWS Templates
  • DPDPA
  • 1. Right to Privacy Judgements
    • (a) MP Sharma v Satish Chandra
    • (b) Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh
    • (c) Govind v State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
    • (d) Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India
    • (e) People's Union For Civil Liberties V Union of India 1996
    • (f) R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)
    • (g) Ritesh Sinha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. 2019
  • 2. Right to be Forgotten judgments
    • (a) Zulfiqar Ahman Khan Vs. Ms. Quintillion
    • (b)Zorawar Singh Mundy Vs. Union of India
    • (c) ABC Vs. UOI & Ors
    • (d) Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave vs State Of Gujarat
    • (e) Sri Vasunathan vs Registrar General
    • (f) Subhranshu Rout @ Gugul vs State Of Odisha
  • 3. General Privacy Orders & Judgements
    • (a)First case which had held CDR is a Sensitive Personal Data
  • 4. DPDPA Orders
    • (Coming soon)
  • 5. DPDPA Appeals
    • (Coming soon)
  • 6. DPDPA Case Laws
    • (Coming soon)

MP Sharma v Satish Chandra | Download Full JUDGEMENT (PDF)

Citation : 1954 AIR 300, 1954 SCR 1077,


In the present case, there was a company was owned by Dalmai group namely Dalmai airways ltd. which was registered in July 1946 and went into liquidation in June 1952. The probe indicated malpractices within the company and attempts to conceal from shareholders, the actual state of affairs by submitting false accounts and balance sheets. An FIR was registered on November 19, 1953, and a request was made to the District Magistrate, Delhi, for search warrants.

The case related to search and seizure of documents of some Dalmia group companies following investigations into its affairs. Following an FIR, the District Magistrate issued warrants, and searches were consequently conducted. In writ petitions before the Supreme Court, the constitutional validity of the searches was challenged on the grounds that they violated their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 20(3) — protection against self-incrimination.

A majority decision by an eight-judge Constitution bench held that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution and also held that search and seizure is must for the protection of social security and also stated that search and seizure process is temporary interference for which statutory recognition was unnecessary.

It was considered to be a reasonable restriction of the freedoms under the Constitution which could not be held unconstitutional. The 4th amendment of United States of America was taken into consideration while giving the judgement which is about the reasonable search and seizure.

Next Case →

All Cases


Report error
Your message ×

Please keep in mind that this form is only for feedback and suggestions for improvement. Unfortunately, questions will not be answered.

0 of 1000 max characters

Logo

Site maintained by Advocate (Dr.) Prashant Mali for Public in General interest

Share: Facebook | Twitter | XING | LinkedIn | WhatsApp | E-Mail