Why ‘review committee' was not being questioned in telephone tapping case, Prabhakar Rao's counsel asks in High Court

The Hindu

25-04-2025

The police were targeting telephone tapping case prime accused and retired IPS officer T. Prabhakar Rao instead of questioning the State government's 'review committee' which was aware and accepted the telephone tapping operations, said senior counsel T. Niranjan Reddy.
Presenting contentions for Mr. Rao (who is in USA and sought protection from arrest in the telephone tapping case) before Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, the senior counsel said the 'review committee' comprising Chief Secretary and two other officials of the rank of Secretaries should give consent to tap a person's phone. Mr. Rao was an officer of only the rank of Inspector General of Police. The police were only targeting Mr. Rao, who was a cancer patient, but did not question or record statements of any member of the review committee, the counsel said.
He said that none of the members of the review committee were made an accused in the case though they played a crucial role and had the power to check illegal tapping of phones or eavesdropping on phone calls of others. 'He was made an accused not because he was the mastermind, but because police wanted someone to be held accountable,' the senior lawyer said.
Referring to allegations that Mr. Rao destroyed hard discs containing telephone tapping and other crucial data while operating from the Special Intelligence Branch office, he contended that the same review committee was empowered to take a final call on destruction of such data. It was for the review committee to decide whether to destroy the data and Mr. Rao being an officer of the rank of IGP had no role to play, Mr. Niranjan Reddy argued.
There was not an iota of evidence to connect Mr. Rao with the destruction of data and evidence relating to tapping of telephones from SIB office. Barring the statements of some officers who maintained that Mr. Rao directed them to erase the evidence, there was no clinching material to prove the allegation, the advocate said. He argued that another accused in the case, Sravan, who too initially left the country and eventually returned to India was granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court.
When Mr. Rao was ready to cooperate with the police in further investigation of the case and ready to return to India, the police should not oppose his petition to seek protection from arrest, the lawyer said.
Senior counsel of Supreme Court Sidharth Luthra (appearing for Telangana police), opposing contentions of Niranjan Reddy, contended that Mr. Rao blatantly violated the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act by indulging in tapping of telephones for the benefit of politicians in power. He sought to know why Mr. Rao opted for employment in police department in the capacity of Officer on Special Duty when he was suffering from cancer. Health ailment did not come in the way while accepting job after retirement but was being cited as a ground for protection from arrest despite being involved in serious offence of telephone tapping, the senior counsel said.
The judge posted the matter to Tuesday for next hearing.