Latest news with #IndianTelegraphRules
News18
a day 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:
Indian Express
a day ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Madras HC strikes down MHA's phone tap order, says law does not permit tapping for secret crime probes
In a significant verdict delivered on Wednesday, the Madras High Court quashed a 2011 phone-tapping order issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), ruling that the surveillance violated the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In his judgement, Justice N Anand Venkatesh observed that 'the law, as it stands today, does not permit the tapping of telephonic conversations or messages for the purpose of covert operations or secretive situations aimed at the detection of crimes.' In the 94-page order, the court added that 'phone tapping, as such, constitutes a violation of the right to privacy of an individual, unless it was justified by a procedure established by law.' The case concerned petitioner P Kishore, former managing director of Everonn Education Ltd., who challenged the MHA's order dated August 12, 2011, which had authorised the interception of his mobile phone under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. The surveillance was ordered in connection with a CBI investigation involving an alleged Rs 50 lakh bribe to a senior Income Tax official. The court made it clear that the state's justification for surveillance — the need to detect corruption — did not meet the legal threshold required to invade an individual's privacy through phone tapping. 'In the instant case, the impugned (under challenge) order does not fall either within the ambit of public emergency or the interest of public safety as explained by the Supreme Court in PUCL case,' Justice Venkatesh wrote, referring to the 1997 People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India verdict, which laid down detailed guidelines for lawful phone interception. The judge noted that the right to privacy, once seen as nebulous and secondary, had evolved into a fundamental right since the 2017 nine-judge bench ruling in K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India. 'The facts of the case disclose that it was a covert operation or a secretive situation for detection of a crime which would not be apparent to any reasonable person. As the law presently stands, a situation of this nature does not fall within the four corners of Section 5(2) of the Act as expounded by the Supreme Court in PUCL which has been approved by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in K S Puttuswamy's case,' the judge wrote. The court laid out the conditions under which phone tapping can be lawfully carried out: either during a 'public emergency' or in the 'interest of public safety.' Neither of these conditions, the judge said, were secretive or abstract; they must be apparent to any reasonable person, as clarified by the Supreme Court in PUCL. The intercepted conversations were also not placed before the Review Committee, as mandated by Rule 419-A of the Telegraph Rules — a procedural safeguard designed to protect against executive overreach. The court held that such non-compliance rendered the entire act of surveillance unconstitutional. 'As a consequence… the impugned order dated August 12, 2011, must necessarily be set aside as unconstitutional and one without jurisdiction,' the court said. The CBI, in its defence, had contended that the surveillance was lawful and carried out to investigate corruption involving public officials — a matter of public interest. The agency argued that the alleged Rs 50 lakh bribe given by Kishore, who was the second accused in the case, to an Income Tax officer, the first accused, through an intermediary was sufficient cause for tapping phone conversations to prevent the commission of an offence. But the judge rejected this line of reasoning, saying the scope of Section 5(2) cannot be expanded to cover secretive investigations, no matter how grave the offence. According to the CBI's case, a search was conducted at the premises of Everonn Education Ltd, where unaccounted income was allegedly discovered. The CBI alleged that the senior tax official demanded a bribe of Rs 50 lakh to help the company avoid penalties. Surveillance was approved to monitor the communication between the accused. While Rs 50 lakh in cash was allegedly recovered from a car linked to the tax officer and a friend, the petitioner was not present during the seizure, nor was the money found in his possession. 'It should be noted that it is not the case of the CBI that the petitioner (the second accused) was present on the spot at that time or that the money was seized from him,' the order said. The surveillance order was signed by the Union Home Secretary and granted to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Kishore initially challenged the phone tapping in a criminal petition in 2014, which was dismissed on technical grounds. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in 2018 after the court granted liberty to challenge the order before the proper forum. The court order detailed the evolution of the right to privacy, tracing its journey from early British common law to landmark US Supreme Court cases like Katz v. United States, and culminating in the Indian apex court's interpretation in Puttaswamy. Justice Venkatesh, citing the Maneka Gandhi ruling, reiterated that any 'procedure established by law' curtailing fundamental rights must be just, fair, and reasonable. 'A valuable constitutional right can be canalised only by civilised processes,' the order said.
Scroll.in
a day 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.
The Hindu
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Phones cannot be tapped for covert operations aimed at crime detection, rules Madras High Court
In a significant verdict, the Madras High Court on Wednesday (July 2, 2025) held that the law, as it stands today, does not permit the tapping of telephonic conversations or messages for the purpose of covert operations or secretive situations aimed at the detection of crimes. The court said, the law permits phone-tapping only for limited purposes, such as public emergency or public safety. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh also observed that phone-tapping, as such, constitutes a violation of the right to privacy of an individual, unless it was justified by a procedure established by law. He quashed an authorisation issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in 2011 for tapping the phone of a person involved in a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case. The judge pointed out that the right to privacy was now an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution in view of Supreme Court decisions. Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 authorises interception of telephones only on two contingencies: on the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety. 'These two contingencies are not secretive conditions or situations. Either of these situations would be apparent to a reasonable person as laid down by the Supreme Court in the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) case. It is only when the above situations exist, the authority concerned 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 judge wrote. The judge allowed a 2018 writ petition filed by P. Kishore of Chennai, who had challenged the Home Ministry's August 12, 2011, authorisation to intercept his telephonic messages and conversations. 'In the instant case, the impugned (under challenge) order does not fall either within the ambit of public emergecy or the interest of public safety as explained by the Supreme Court in PUCL case,' he said. Justice Venkatesh went on to state: 'The facts of the case disclose that it was a covert operation or a secretive situation for detection of a crime which would not be apparent to any reasonable person. As the law presently stands, a situation of this nature does not fall within the four corners of Section 5(2) of the Act as expounded by the Supreme Court in PUCL which has been approved by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttuswamy's case.' The judge further said, the officials had also contravened Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, by failing to place the intercepted materials before the review committee within the stipulated time to examine as to whether the interception was made in compliance with Section 5(2). 'As a consequence... the impugned order dated August 12, 2011, must necessarily be set aside as unconstitutional and one without jurisdiction,' he added.
