'Violates Right To Privacy': Madras High Court Quashes MHA's 2011 Phone Tapping Order
The court quashed the phone tapping order, stating it violated the right to privacy as protected under the Constitution
The Madras High Court on Wednesday ruled that telephone tapping cannot be carried out as part of covert operations aimed at detecting crime, stating such actions are not permitted under existing law.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh said that the law allows phone interception only in cases of public emergency or when public safety is at risk.
The ruling came in response to a petition filed by P Kishore, Managing Director of Everonn Education, who was named in a 2011 corruption case by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) along with an Income Tax officer, Andasu Ravinder.
According to the CBI, Ravinder demanded a bribe from Kishore, who allegedly paid him Rs 50 lakh. Based on this, the Union Home Ministry issued an order in August 2011 to tap Kishore's mobile phone.
Kishore later challenged this order in court.
Court Quashes MHA Order
The court quashed the phone tapping order, stating it violated the right to privacy as protected under the Constitution, unless authorised under due legal process.
The Home Ministry had invoked Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act to justify the interception.
However, the court observed that Section 5(2) permits phone tapping only during a public emergency or in the interest of public safety, and only after authorities are satisfied that it is necessary in matters such as national security or public order.
'In this case, the interception was part of a covert operation to detect a crime, which does not fall under the scope of Section 5(2)," the court said.
Justice Venkatesh also cited a 1996 Supreme Court judgment in People's Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India, which set guidelines for phone tapping, and the 2017 Puttaswamy verdict, which upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right.
The court further noted that Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules was not followed, as the intercepted material was not placed before the review committee in a timely manner.
'As a consequence… the impugned order dated August 12, 2011, must necessarily be set aside as unconstitutional and one without jurisdiction," the judge concluded.
First Published:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Can't let Governors sit on bills indefinitely: SC
New Delhi: Permitting governors to sit indefinitely on bills passed by state legislatures may render the democratic process and the will of the people 'defunct', the Supreme Court observed on Thursday, as it continued hearing the presidential reference on whether the courts can prescribe timelines for gubernatorial and presidential assent. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) A constitution bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar is examining President Droupadi Murmu's Article 143 reference made in May. The reference seeks clarity on the top court's April 8 ruling which, for the first time, laid down timelines for governors and the president to decide on state bills pending before them. 'If a particular function is entrusted to the governor and for years he withholds it, will that also be beyond the scope of judicial review of this court? When this court has set aside constitutional amendments taking away judicial review as violating the basic structure, can we now say that however high a constitutional authority may be, courts will still be powerless if it does not act?' the bench asked. The bench also pressed the Centre to explain what remedy exists when governors indefinitely delay action. 'Under Article 200, if we hold that the governor has unlimited power to withhold a bill for time immemorial, what is the safeguard for a duly elected legislature? Suppose a legislature elected by a two-thirds majority passes a bill unanimously, and the governor simply sits on it, it would make the legislature totally defunct,' it further remarked. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, countered that while the court's concern may be justified, it cannot assume jurisdiction to set time limits where the Constitution is silent. 'A justification can never confer jurisdiction. Every problem in this country may not have a solution in the Supreme Court. Some problems must find solutions within the system,' he said. According to Mehta, the solution was in the 'political process, not judicial directions'. He argued that chief ministers could engage directly with governors, prime ministers, or even the President to resolve such impasses. 'Such issues have been arising for decades but have always been resolved through political statesmanship and maturity. Why cannot we trust other constitutional functionaries? The remedy ultimately will lie with Parliament by way of an amendment, not by judicial legislation,' Mehta submitted. At this, the bench interjected: 'When there is no outer limit, can a constitutional interpretation be left to a vacuum? Though a time limit may not be prescribed, there must be some way the process works. There cannot be a situation where not acting on a bill itself is a full stop… nothing further.' The bench also questioned whether judicial review could be completely excluded. The court observed: 'The decision may not be justiciable, but the decision-making process certainly falls within the ambit of judicial review.' Mehta, however, warned that opening the door to scrutiny would lead to 'multilevel challenges' at every stage of a governor's or president's decision under Articles 200 and 201. 'Our problem is every step before the final decision will also be challenged because they can also constitute a 'decision',' he argued. He cited judicial precedents where the court held that fixed timelines for criminal trials could not be judicially prescribed, to reinforce his submission that timelines in constitutional processes too cannot be judicially imposed. But the bench pressed further, citing petitions already filed by Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal. 'Suppose a decision is not taken for four years. What happens to the democratic set-up of the government? What happens to the will of the two-thirds majority of the legislature?' it asked. Mehta responded with an analogy: 'Take the example of a trial pending for 10 years. Can the President step in and declare that the punishment is deemed to have been undergone because the judiciary has delayed? Separation of powers means some issues are non-justiciable.' The court, however, made it clear that it was not dealing with a hypothetical concern. 'We are having petitions from at least four states,' the court underlined. The presidential reference, prompted by the court's April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, asks whether the judiciary can impose timelines on constitutional authorities like governors and the president when the Constitution itself is silent. In that ruling, a two-judge bench also fixed a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor's prolonged inaction was 'illegal'. Mehta criticised the notion of deemed assent. 'Deemed assent would mean your lordships substituted yourselves for the governor and declared the assent deemed to have been granted. Article 142 cannot be used to amend the Constitution,' he argued. The bench, however, maintained that courts cannot abdicate their role as custodians of the Constitution. 'Every wrong has to have a remedy. Whether the hands of the constitutional court will be tied when a constitutional functionary refuses to discharge their function without any valid reason? Whether the court will say we are powerless?' the bench asked. Arguments on the reference will continue on August 26.
Indian Express
28 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Online gaming companies move to shut paid operations as gaming Bill gets Rajya Sabha nod
The Rajya Sabha's approval of the online gaming Bill Thursday has drawn the final curtain on India's booming real-money gaming industry. What was once a bustling digital arena of wagers and winnings now stands eerily silent, as leading platforms suspend paid play and others fold entirely. Lawmakers hail the measure as a shield against harm, but to thousands of workers and millions of players, it feels like the lights have dimmed on a once-thriving stage. Opinion trading platform Probo, in a message displayed on its app, said that 'in light of recent developments, we have paused all recharge activities in your best interest,' while requesting users to withdraw funds. Dream11, the country's biggest fantasy sports app and the Indian cricket team's main jersey sponsor, also communicated to its employees that it will wind down its real money operations. Zupee, another gaming platform, said it was discontinuing paid games, with users able to play free titles. 'Everyone will shut down paid operations for now, as the industry prepares a legal roadmap to challenge the law,' a senior gaming industry executive said. The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, now passed by both houses of Parliament, outlaws online money gaming services and penalises their celebrity endorsers. The Bill has been drafted over national security concerns related to online gaming platforms, including the use of digital wallets and cryptocurrencies for money laundering and illicit fund transfers, these platforms serving as potential messaging and communication grounds for terror organisations, and offshore entities circumventing Indian tax and legal obligations, among others. The government will prohibit any person from offering online games in India, failing which they could be imprisoned for up to three years, and penalised Rs 1 crore. Those promoting such platforms, such as social media influencers, will also face jail time of two years, and a penalty of Rs 50 lakh. The government will also prohibit banks and financial institutions from facilitating financial transactions on such platforms. The Bill applies to all online money gaming platforms irrespective of whether they are games of skill or chance, a distinction the industry had lobbied hard for in the past. The Bill said that the unchecked expansion of online money gaming services has been linked to 'unlawful activities including financial fraud, money-laundering, tax evasion, and in some cases, the financing of terrorism, thereby posing threats to national security, public order and the integrity of the State'. The parallel proliferation of online money games accessible through mobile phones, computers and the internet, and offering monetary returns against user deposits has led to 'serious social, financial, psychological and public health harms, particularly among young individuals and economically disadvantaged groups,' it said.
Time of India
43 minutes ago
- Time of India
Sippy Sidhu murder: Police begin probe against inspector for investigation ‘lapses'
1 2 Chandigarh: The UT police has initiated a regular departmental inquiry against inspector Poonam Dilawari in connection with the high-profile murder case of national-level shooter and advocate Sippy Sidhu. The inquiry follows directions from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is currently handling the case. The police have issued summons to the deceased's mother, Deepinder Kaur, and brother, Jasmanpreet Singh alias Jippy Sidhu, to attend the departmental proceedings scheduled for Aug 23. The trial of the murder case is ongoing in the special CBI court, with the next hearing set for Sept 9 for prosecution evidence. Inspector Poonam Dilawari was the station house officer (SHO) of Sector 26 police station at the time of the murder. The CBI's chargesheet, filed under Section 173 of the CrPC on Dec 7, 2020, mentioned lapses in the initial investigation, which seriously hampered the progress of the investigation, and recommended a departmental inquiry for a major penalty against her. The chargesheet also alleged that Dilawari and another officer were involved in the destruction of evidence. Jasmanpreet Singh Sidhu welcomed the move, said although delayed, the inquiry was a necessary step. He had earlier filed a protest petition against the CBI report, alleging that the officer was in collusion with the accused, Kalyani Singh, and her family. He demanded that criminal proceedings under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 201 (destruction of evidence) be initiated against Dilawari. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
