Govind, the petitioner being a citizen of India was accused of a number of crimes during the period 1960-1969, however, some of which are contended to be false. In 1962, he was convicted of trespass and served with imprisonment of two months, and a fine of Rs.100 was imposed. Next, he was convicted of housebreaking and was served with imprisonment of one month and a fine of Rs.501. Meanwhile, the Government of Madhya Pradesh instituted Regulations 855 and 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations under Section 46(2) of the Police Act. According to the regulations imposed the people suspected of indulging in some or other criminal activity in a way that the person shows a “determination to lead a criminal life” or can be termed as a habitual criminal should be registered in a history sheet and such people are to be kept under constant surveillance to maintain the security and public order. It included domiciliary visits meaning visits which should be irregular in nature by the police in the night to the private house for making sure that the suspect is staying at home or has gone out. Govind was registered as a habitual criminal and was subjected to regular surveillance. Govind claimed that the visits were regular and he was been beaten and assaulted by the policemen and was kept under the supervision of the village headman along with the neighbours. He contested before the Apex Court that Regulations 855 and 856 were not in accordance with the right to privacy, superseding Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and 19(1)(d) subsequently and was also not backed by law.

The petitioner, Govind, challenged the validity of certain regulations in the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations that allowed for police surveillance, including domiciliary visits (visits to a person's home). Govind argued that these regulations were unconstitutional as they violated his right to privacy.

The Supreme Court, while dismissing the petition, expressed concerns about the breadth of the regulations and suggested that they might be unconstitutional. The Court emphasized the importance of the right to privacy and stated that it could only be restricted by a clear and valid law.
Although the Court did not strike down the regulations, it signaled a strong message about the need for careful consideration of privacy rights when implementing surveillance measures. This case is significant as it highlights the evolving understanding of the right to privacy in India and the limits on state power to infringe upon it.