Latest news with #AmitMahajan
Deccan Herald
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Deccan Herald
Delhi High Court rejects plea for destroying transcripts of calls, texts intercepted by CBI
Justice Amit Mahajan on June 26 also dismissed the petition of one Aakash Deep Chouhan against an order of the trial court framing criminal conspiracy charges under IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Time of India
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Delhi HC rejects plea for destroying transcripts of calls, texts intercepted by CBI
The Delhi High Court has rejected an accused's plea for destroying transcripts of calls and messages allegedly illegally intercepted by CBI , underlining corruption 's "pervasive impact" on country's economy. Justice Amit Mahajan on June 26 also dismissed the petition of one Aakash Deep Chouhan against an order of the trial court framing criminal conspiracy charges under IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Holding it to be a legal interception, the high court said the interception orders passed by the union Ministry of Home Affairs showed they were passed "for the reason of public safety " in the interest of public order to prevent incitement to commission of an offence. Play Video Pause Skip Backward Skip Forward Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration 0:00 Loaded : 0% 0:00 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 1x Playback Rate Chapters Chapters Descriptions descriptions off , selected Captions captions settings , opens captions settings dialog captions off , selected Audio Track default , selected Picture-in-Picture Fullscreen This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Benefits of Hiring a Data-Driven Digital Marketing Agency in Singapore. TechBullion Undo "The threat posed by corruption cannot be understated. Corruption has a pervasive impact on a nation's economy and the same can impact anything from infrastructural development to resource allocation," the order read. It continued, "Corruption by a public servant has far reaching consequences as it serves to not only erode public trust and cast aspersions on the integrity of public institutions, but also renders the public at large susceptible and vulnerable by threatening the economic safety of the country." Live Events The court, therefore, held no case was made for the destruction of the transcripts. The CBI alleged conspiracy for securing a sub-contract for steel work from M/s Shapoorji Pallonji and Company (P) Ltd in favour of M/s Capacite Structures Limited in the project awarded to it by M/s NBCC (India) Ltd. Pradeep, a public servant, allegedly demanded a new motorcycle as illegal gratification to exercise his influence with senior functionaries of NBCC. The demand was conveyed by another accused Rishabh, who acted as a middleman to facilitate the transaction, to accused Sanjay, the managing director of M/s Capacite Structures Limited, the CBI alleged. Chouhan, who was an employee of accused Sanjay, had reportedly purchased the motorcycle to be given as bribe to Pradeep. Chouhan, in his plea, contended that interceptions were unlawfully and illegally carried out by CBI in violation of his fundamental rights and statutory safeguards and accordingly, they were inadmissible as evidence. He also submitted that the material brought forth by CBI after investigation, including the calls, did not make out a case of grave suspicion against him. Opposing the plea, the CBI argued destruction of the intercepted calls was not warranted and the condition precedent of public safety, as prescribed under the Indian Telegraph Act, was met in the case. CBI said the allegations against Chouhan related to corruption, which posed a risk on the economic well being of the country and its people. Rejecting the plea, the court said though every person had a fundamental right to privacy, the same wasn't absolute and couldnt be curtailed by procedure established by law. The Centre or a state government or any officer specially authorised could legally carry out interception or surveillance in the event of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety, it added. The court observed the serious nature of allegations in the present case, if proven, would render dubious the entire process of awarding of tenders and bids on the basis of personal influence with senior officers rather than benefit of the public at large.
Indian Express
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Explained: Law on phone-tapping, and two HC rulings
Can the government tap the phones of suspects to gather evidence before a crime is committed? Last week, in two separate cases, the Madras and the Delhi High Courts gave varying answers to this question. What is the law on phone tapping in India, and how have High Courts interpreted it? The law on tapping The government's powers to intercept communication is laid down in — and circumscribed by — three pieces of legislation. The 140-year-old Telegraph Act was originally meant for intercepting telegrams, but over the years it has been expanded to include telephonic conversations. Section 5(2) of the Act states that both state and central governments can, 'on the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety', authorise interception. Given that the right to free speech and the right to privacy are fundamental rights, any encroachment on these rights through surveillance is only permissible on narrow constitutional grounds. These grounds — the interest of the sovereignty, and integrity of India; the security of the state; friendly relations with foreign states; public order; or preventing incitement to the commission of an offence — are enumerated as 'reasonable restrictions' under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Section 5(2) of the Act also mentions these grounds for authorising interception. For actions to be deemed a threat to 'public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety' and allow for interception, they have to necessarily fall into one of the reasonable restrictions. The High Court rulings Both the Madras and Delhi High Court cases involved 'preventing incitement to the commission of an offence', which is one of the valid grounds in law for authorising phone tapping. Both courts separately examined the nature of economic offences to determine if they could be deemed as 'public emergency' or 'public safety.' While the Delhi High Court upheld the interception order, the Madras High Court quashed it. DELHI HC: On June 26, the Delhi High Court rejected the plea of an accused who challenged a trial court's order accepting evidence gathered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) through phone-tapping. The case related to the accused allegedly seeking to secure a sub-contract for the redevelopment of the ITPO complex into an Integrated Exhibition-Cum-Convention Centre through corrupt means. In 2017, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had authorised interception of his phone on the suspicion that he was attempting to bribe a public official. Justice Amit Mahajan stated in his order that given the contract was for Rs 2,149.93 crore, 'the economic scale of the offence, in the opinion of this Court, satisfies the threshold of public safety'. 'The threat posed by corruption cannot be understated. Corruption has a pervasive impact on a nation's economy and the same can impact anything from infrastructural development to resource allocation. Corruption by a public servant has far-reaching consequences as it serves to not only erode public trust and cast aspersions on the integrity of public institutions, but also renders the public at large susceptible and vulnerable by threatening the economic safety of the country,' the High Court said. Madras HC: The Madras High Court on July 2 quashed an interception order issued by the MHA in 2011 for intercepting the phone of an accused in a bribery case. The accused was allegedly attempting to pay a bribe of Rs 50 lakh to a senior Income Tax officer to help the accused hide undisclosed taxable income. Justice Anand Venkatesh in his order stated that a 'public emergency' must be construed narrowly. In the petitioner's case, the MHA's objective to deal with tax evasion would not qualify as a 'public emergency' under Section 5(2) of the Act, the court said. The court also flagged in its order a press note that was released by the Press Information Bureau in April 2011, four months before the MHA order, saying that the law does not allow the monitoring of conversations through phone-tapping 'to merely detect tax evasion'. Additionally, the court said that the phone-tap was unlawful since it did not comply with the procedural standards set by the Supreme Court in a 1997 ruling. Once a phone-tap order is declared unlawful, any information gathered through the tap cannot be treated as evidence in a court of law. Procedural norms In its landmark 1997 ruling in People's Union Of Civil Liberties vs Union Of India, the Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act. While it upheld the law, the court laid down procedural safeguards for its application. The SC said that an order for phone tapping can be issued only by the home secretary of the state and central governments, and that this power cannot be delegated to officers below the rank of joint secretary. The authorising authority must also consider whether the information could 'reasonably be acquired by other means'. Within two months of ordering a phone tap, a committee comprising the cabinet secretary, the law secretary and the telecom secretary shall review the order. At the state level, the committee shall comprise the chief secretary, law secretary and another member other than the home secretary. The scrutiny by the board has also been included under Rule 419-A (17) of the Telegraph Rules.
Hindustan Times
06-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Intercepting calls to prevent corruption is legal: Delhi high court
The Delhi high court has held that intercepting calls to prevent the commission of corruption involving large amounts of money is permissible since such offences have the capacity to influence the public at large. CBI said that the calls were legally intercepted in the interest of public order to prevent the commission of an offence involving a ₹ 2,149.93 crore project. (HT Archive) Justice Amit Mahajan delivered the ruling in a plea filed by a man accused of bribery involving a ₹2,149.93 crore project, who sought the destruction of telephonic calls/messages intercepted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Akash Deep Chauhan, the petitioner, said that the case against him was based on calls which were intercepted illegally in contravention of Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, which permits the same in cases of public emergency or in the interest of public safety. Chauhan said that such recordings had prejudiced the case against him and that unlawfully obtained call recordings could not be used to incriminate him. CBI said that the calls were legally intercepted in the interest of public order to prevent the commission of an offence involving a ₹2,149.93 crore project. Agreeing with CBI's submission and refusing to quash the same, the court in its June 26 ruling said, 'Although it cannot be generalised that all allegations in relation to corruption would have the capacity of influencing the public at large, the allegations herein don't relate to a trivial project but one that was awarded for ₹2,149.93 crore where the work sought by way of influence would have been of a substantial sum as well. The economic scale of the offence, in the opinion of this court, satisfies the threshold of 'public safety'.' The court ruled that the interception orders passed by the Union home ministry were passed for reasons of public safety in the interest of public order to prevent incitement to the commission of an offence and were carried out in accordance with law. In his ruling released later, the judge also underscored the impact of corruption by public servants on the country. 'Corruption by a public servant has far reaching consequences as it serves to not only erode public trust and cast aspersions on the integrity of public institutions, but also renders the public at large susceptible and vulnerable by threatening the economic safety of the country.' In his petition, Chauhan had also sought to set aside a city court's order framing charges under Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (bribing a public servant to obtain or retain business or other advantages) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) for involvement in an alleged case of bribery. CBI had alleged that Chauhan was an employee of a company, M/s Capacite Structures Limited, which had conspired to secure a subcontract for steel work from M/S Shapoorji Pallonji in a ₹2,149.93 project awarded to it by NBCC (India) Limited, by bribing a government official. The public servant had allegedly demanded a new motorcycle as illegal gratification and the man had allegedly purchased the bike that had to be given as a bribe. Chauhan said that the material brought forth by CBI, including the calls, did not make out a case of grave suspicion and he was merely an employee who was acting on instructions. However, the court refused to set aside the order, stating that the material on record cast grave suspicion against him and pointed towards his participation in the transfer of the bribe despite knowing about the nature of the transaction. 'The allegations are grave in nature and, if proven, would render dubious the entire process of awarding of tenders and bids on the basis of personal influence with senior officers rather than benefit of the public at large,' the court said.
News18
04-07-2025
- Business
- News18
Paras Defence Shares Jump 10% On Turning Ex-Split Today; Key Points For Investors
Last Updated: Shares of Paras Defence and Space Technologies were locked in a 10 per cent upper circuit at Rs 933.50 on the BSE; Should you invest? Paras Defence Shares Hit Upper Circuit: Shares of Paras Defence and Space Technologies were locked in a 10 per cent upper circuit at Rs 933.50 on the BSE during Friday's intra-day session. The rally came as the small-cap aerospace and defence firm turned ex-split in a 1:1 ratio, subdividing equity shares from Rs 10 to Rs 5 face value. Over the last four trading sessions, the stock has surged 24 per cent, driven by news that Paras Defence will supply advanced counter-unmanned aircraft system (UAS) technology to CERBAIR, a France-based firm. The stock recently hit a 52-week high of Rs 971.80 (adjusted for the split) and has more than doubled—soaring 133 per cent—from its 52-week low of Rs 401 touched on April 7, 2025. Stock Split Details The board of directors approved the stock split on April 30, 2025, converting 1 equity share of Rs 10 face value into 2 equity shares of Rs 5 each. The record date for the stock split was fixed as Friday, July 4, 2025. Investors purchasing shares on or after this date will not be eligible for the split. Paras Defence said the move is aimed at enhancing liquidity and making the stock more accessible to retail investors by reducing the per-share price. In a recent interview with CNBC-TV18, Amit Mahajan of Paras Defence clarified that the company's exposure to Israel is primarily for technology transfers and not direct exports. He added that while minor delays of 1–2 weeks are expected in tech transfer from Israeli firms, there is no anticipated supply chain disruption that would impact component imports. The company's total export exposure to Israel stands at only 5 per cent. Shares of Paras Defence had closed 0.24% lower at Rs 1,692.20 on Thursday. Over the past six months, the stock has gained 75 per cent. Strong Tailwinds for India's Defence Sector India's defence sector is entering a high-growth phase, with the Ministry of Defence targeting Rs 3 trillion in indigenous production by 2028–29F, implying a 19 per cent CAGR from FY24 levels. Defence exports are expected to rise to Rs 50,000 crore by the same year, building on the 32.5 per cent YoY jump recorded between FY23 and FY24. Analysts at InCred Equities highlighted government initiatives such as the Technology Development Fund, which has sanctioned 78 projects worth Rs 333 crore, and DRDO's support for the industry through free patent access and technology transfers. For FY26BE, the MoD has allocated Rs 6.81 trillion, up 6.3 per cent YoY. Given ongoing geopolitical tensions—especially in the Indo-Pacific and along India's borders with China and Pakistan—InCred projects the defence budget to grow by around 10 per cent YoY in FY27F to reach Rs 7.49 trillion. Meanwhile, the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) has approved capital procurement proposals worth Rs 1.05 trillion. All fall under the 'Buy (Indian–IDDM)' category, ensuring only domestically designed, developed, and manufactured systems will be procured. About Paras Defence and Space Technologies Paras Defence is a leading Indian defence engineering company offering a full suite of indigenously designed, developed, and manufactured (IDDM) products and solutions across the defence and space sectors. Its client portfolio includes marquee names such as DRDO, ISRO, BEL, L&T, Ordnance Factories, and the Ministry of Defence. The company also exports to several global markets including Israel, Europe, the USA, and South Korea. Disclaimer:Disclaimer: The views and investment tips by experts in this report are their own and not those of the website or its management. Users are advised to check with certified experts before taking any investment decisions.
