They sought direction to the respondent-police authorities not to harass, threaten or intimidate the petitioners or their family members.
Despite her husband not even being named as an accused in the initial FIR, the officers entered the house without a warrant.
The personnel proceeded into the woman's bedroom, interrogated her, and forcibly took possession of her mobile phone without preparing any formal seizure memo or calling independent witnesses.
The Court further stated: "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".
Declaring the actions of the police personnel unsustainable in law, the High Court ordered the immediate return of the seized mobile phone to the petitioner.
A division bench comprising Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta held that police cannot use an ongoing investigation as an excuse to trample upon a citizen's constitutional rights.
The Court directed the Maharashtra State Government to pay ₹10,000 in compensation to the woman for the violation of her fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, adding that the State is free to recover the fine directly from the erring officers.
Midnight intrusion: All about the case
The judgment, pronounced on July 3, 2026, stemmed from a criminal writ petition filed by Khushbu and her husband, Iddrish Khan. They sought direction to the respondent-police authorities not to harass, threaten or intimidate the petitioners or their family members.
The petitioners informed the court that on January 25, 2026, at around 11:30 p.m., police personnel from the Khapa Police Station entered their residence in Sillewada to investigate a motor vehicle accident.
Despite her husband not even being named as an accused in the initial FIR, the officers entered the house without a warrant. Crucially, no lady police constable accompanied the investigating team.
The personnel proceeded into the woman's bedroom, interrogated her, and forcibly took possession of her mobile phone without preparing any formal seizure memo or calling independent witnesses.
It was argued that a woman is ordinarily required to be examined at her residence and that such examination must be conducted in a manner consistent with her dignity and the safeguards recognised by law.
The petitioners also sought a declaration that the action of police without following the procedure prescribed under BNSS be declared illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
"Serious Invasion of Privacy"
Rejecting the police’s defence that the search was merely a necessary step in 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 division bench also remarked that the right to privacy has now been recognised as an inseparable facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court further stated: "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".
Court highlights blatant BNSS violations
Perusing the police case diary, the High Court found that the investigating officers entirely bypassed the mandatory procedural safeguards established under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The Court noted the cumulative effect of two major statutory violations:
Violation of Section 185 BNSS: The officers failed to record the grounds of their belief in writing before conducting the warrantless search, failed to record the search through audio-video electronic means (such as a mobile phone), and did not forward the records to a Magistrate within 48 hours.
Violation of Section 105 BNSS: The seizure of the mobile phone was done without a contemporaneous seizure panchnama, without independent panch witnesses, and without issuing any receipt or acknowledgment to the woman.
Declaring the actions of the police personnel unsustainable in law, the High Court ordered the immediate return of the seized mobile phone to the petitioner.
The State Government has been ordered to pay the ₹10,000 compensation within two months. The bench warned that a failure to pay within this stipulated period would attract an interest of 8% per annum until the actual realisation of the amount.
The Court added that although monetary compensation cannot fully redress the invasion of privacy and dignity suffered by petitioner No.1, it would provide "some measure of solace for the violation of her constitutional rights" and would also serve as a "reminder that investigative powers must be exercised strictly in accordance with law and not arbitrarily".
Case title: Khushbu And Anr v State of Maharashtra And Anr
