The court stressed that a person's home is a private sanctuary, and intrusions at odd hours violate the right to dignity.
Published Jun 22, 2025 | 1:01 PM ⚊ Updated Jun 22, 2025 | 1:01 PM
Kerala High Court. (iStock)
Synopsis: Kerala High Court said that police cannot knock on doors or enter the homes of suspects or those with criminal history at night under the pretext of surveillance.
In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court said that police cannot knock on doors or enter the homes of suspects or those with criminal history at night under the pretext of surveillance. Justice VG Arun delivered the verdict while quashing an FIR against a man accused of threatening police during a late-night inspection.
The court stressed that a person’s home is a private sanctuary, and intrusions at odd hours violate the right to dignity. It cited the Kerala Police Manual, which permits only informal or close watch of known offenders, not night visits.
The petitioner claimed the case was a retaliatory move after he raised a police harassment complaint.
Police argued they were conducting routine checks, and the man became abusive when asked to come out.
“In other words, every man’s house is his castle or temple, the sanctity of which cannot be violated by knocking on the door at odd hours. A person’s right to life encompasses the right to live with dignity, and dignity is non-negotiable,” it said.
The court further said that under the Kerala Police Manual, only ‘informal watching’ of history sheeters and ‘close watch’ over those leading a criminal existence were permitted. “Undoubtedly, neither of those expressions permits domicile visits at night,” it added.
The court also clarified that midnight knocks cannot be considered lawful directions under Section 39 of the Kerala Police Act.
The petitioner had claimed that he was implicated in the case to divert the enquiry ordered by the high court into his complaint alleging police harassment. The police had claimed that as part of their night check duty on rowdy history sheeters, officers had gone to ascertain if the petitioner was at home. However, when he was asked to open the door of his home, he refused to do so and also abused and intimidated the officer, it was alleged.
“If, as alleged, the petitioner had used derogatory language or threatened the police during the course of such refusal, his action may invite some other offence, but definitely not the offence he is presently charged with,” the court said.
(With inputs from Sreelakshmi Soman.)
