Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 calculated measures. xx xx xx The freedom of movement in clause (d) of Article 19 therefore must be a movement in a free country i.e. in a country where he can do whatever he likes, speak to whomsoever he wants, meet people of his own choice without any apprehension, subject of course to the law of social control. The petitioner under the shadow of surveillance is certainly deprived of this freedom. He can move physically, but he cannot do so freely, for all his activities are watched and noted. The shroud of surveillance cast upon him perforce engender inhibitions in him and he cannot act freely as he would like to do. 136) In the case of District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad and Anr. v. Canara Bank and Ors.62, this Court struck down provisions of a legislation on grounds that it was too intrusive of citizens right to privacy. The case involved an evaluation of the Andhra Pradesh Stamp Act which authorized the collector to delegate any person to enter any premises in order to search for and 62 (2005) 1 SCC 496 impound any document that was found to be improperly stamped. After an exhaustive analysis of privacy laws across the world, and in India, the Court held that in the absence of any safeguards as to probable or reasonable cause or reasonable basis, this provision was violative of the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy both of the house and of the person. The Court held: The A.P. amendment permits inspection being carried out by the Collector by having access to the documents which are in private custody i.e. custody other than that of a public officer. It is clear that this provision empowers invasion of the home of the person in whose possession the documents 'tending' to or leading to the various facts stated in sec. 73 are in existence and sec. 73 being one without any safeguards as to probable or reasonable cause or reasonable basis or materials violates the right to privacy both of the house and of the person. We have already referred to R. Rajagopal's case wherein the learned judges have held that the right to personal liberty also means the life free from encroachments unsustainable in law and such right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution. 137) Reference was made to the U.S Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Jones63 where the court held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment. Sotomayor, J. in her concurring judgment observed that Fourth Amendment search and seizure is not only concerned with physical trespassory intrusions on property but also non-physical violation of privacy 63 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012) that society recognizes as reasonable. She notes that GPS data can reveal an entire profile of a person simply by knowing the places she visits and that the Government can mine this data in the future: With increasing regularity, the Government will be capable of duplicating the monitoring undertaken in this case by enlisting factory or owner-installed vehicle Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ 116