Latest news with #EveronnEducation
News18
4 days ago
- Politics
- News18
'Violates Right To Privacy': Madras High Court Quashes MHA's 2011 Phone Tapping Order
Last Updated: 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:
Scroll.in
4 days ago
- Scroll.in
Phones cannot be tapped as part of covert operations aimed at detecting crime, says Madras HC
The Madras High Court on Wednesday held that the law does not allow for telephonic conversations or messages to be tapped for the purposes of covert operations aimed at crime detection. The law permits phone tapping only in public emergencies or in the interest of public safety, the court said. Justice N Anand Venkatesh was hearing a petition by P Kishore, the managing director of a company in Chennai named Everonn Education. The Central Bureau of Investigation had in 2011 filed a corruption case against three persons, including Kishore and an Income Tax official named Andasu Ravinder. The agency alleged that the official demanded a bribe from the company to help it evade taxes, after which Kishore paid him Rs 50 lakh. The Union home ministry had in August 2011 passed an order allowing Kishore's mobile phone to be tapped. Kishore challenged the order before the High Court. The court on Tuesday quashed the home ministry's order, holding that phone tapping would violate the right to privacy unless it was authorised under a procedure established by law. The home ministry had authorised the tapping of Kishore under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act. However, the court noted that the provision only allows for the interception of telephones in public emergencies or in the interest of public safety. When such a situation exists, the authorities may pass an order directing interception of messages 'after recording satisfaction if it is necessary or expedient to do so in the interest of sovereignty or integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence', the court said. The judge noted that the case at hand was one involving a covert operation for detecting a crime. 'As the law presently stands, a situation of this nature does not fall within the four corners of Section 5(2) of the Act…' the court said. The judge referred to a 1996 Supreme Court judgement on a petition filed by the People's Union for Civil Liberties, in which the court laid down guidelines for telephone tapping. It also noted that these principles had been approved by the court in its 2017 judgement in the Puttaswamy versus Union of India case, in which it held that the right to privacy was a protected fundamental right under the Constitution. The High Court on Wednesday also held that the authorities had contravened Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules by not placing the intercepted material before a review committee in time. 'As a consequence... the impugned order dated August 12, 2011, must necessarily be set aside as unconstitutional and one without jurisdiction,' Justice Venkatesh said.
