The Bombay High Court held that an ongoing police investigation cannot justify violating a citizen’s constitutional rights, reaffirming the protection of privacy under Article 21. The Court directed the Maharashtra Government to pay Rs.10,000 compensation to the woman, permitting recovery of the amount from the erring police officers.
The Bombay High Court observed that the police cannot justify the violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights by citing an ongoing investigation.
A division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta heard the matter.
The High Court directed the Maharashtra State Government to pay Rs.10,000 as compensation to the woman for infringement of her fundamental right to privacy under Article 21.
It further clarified that the State may recover the amount directly from the erring police officers.
The judgment, delivered on July 3, 2026, was passed in a criminal writ petition filed by Khushbu and her husband Iddrish Khan. They sought directions to the police authorities to refrain from harassing, threatening, or intimidating the petitioners and their family members.
According to the petitioners, on January 25, 2026, at around 11:30 p.m., police personnel from Khapa Police Station entered their residence at Sillewada under the pretext of investigating a motor vehicle accident.
The petitioners argued that their husband was not even named as an accused in the FIR at the time of the incident, yet the officers entered the home without a warrant.
They also contended that no lady police constable accompanied the investigating team, and that the officers entered the woman’s bedroom, interrogated her, and forcibly took her mobile phone without preparing a formal seizure memo or associating independent witnesses.
The petitioners emphasised that, as a matter of safeguarding dignity, a woman is ordinarily required to be examined at her residence, and that such examination must be undertaken in a manner consistent with legal protections.
They also prayed for a declaration that police action that does not follow the procedure prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) be treated as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 21.
Rejecting the police plea that the entry and search were justified due to an ongoing investigation, the High Court remarked,
“Entry into the residential premises of a citizen, more particularly into the bedroom occupied by a woman, without adherence to the statutory safeguards and the forcible seizure of her mobile phone without following the procedure prescribed under the BNSS, constitute a serious invasion of the petitioner’s privacy and dignity”.
The bench noted that the right to privacy is now recognised as an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
The Court added,
“The investigating agency is expected to act strictly within the bounds of law, and the object of investigation cannot legitimise an otherwise illegal search or seizure”.
Examining the police case diary, the High Court held that the investigating officers had bypassed mandatory procedural safeguards under the BNSS, 2023.
The Court identified two core violations,
- Violation of Section 185 BNSS:
The officers did not record in writing the grounds of belief before conducting a warrantless search, failed to record the search through audio-video electronic means (such as by recording via mobile phone), and did not submit the records to a Magistrate within 48 hours. - Violation of Section 105 BNSS:
The mobile phone was seized without a contemporaneous seizure panchnama, without independent panch witnesses, and without issuing any receipt or acknowledgement to the woman.
Holding the police action unsustainable in law, the High Court ordered the immediate return of the seized mobile phone to the petitioner. It also directed the State Government to pay Rs.10,000 compensation within two months.
The Court further warned that if the amount was not paid within the stipulated period, it would carry interest at 8% per annum until actual realisation.
The bench clarified that while monetary compensation cannot completely undo the invasion of privacy and dignity, it would provide “some measure of solace for the violation of her constitutional rights and act as a reminder that investigative powers must be exercised strictly in accordance with law and not arbitrarily”.
