Phone-tapping violates right to privacy: Madras Court observes, ‘Can only be used for…'

Mint

a day ago

Phone-tapping is violation of the fundamental right to privacy unless it is justified by a procedure established by law, Madras High Court observed on Wednesday
Citing Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Justice N Anand Venkatesh states that the law permits phone-tapping in cases of a public emergency or in the interest of public safety but it should not be misused to to cover regular criminal investigations.
Court observed, as qouted by Bar and Bench, "The right to privacy is now an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of The Constitution of India. Telephone tapping constitutes a violation of the right to privacy unless justified by a procedure established by law."
'Section 5(2) of the Act authorizes interception of telephones on the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interests of public safety...the words of Section 5(2) of the Act cannot be strained to include detection of ordinary crime'
The Court was hearing a plea challenging a 2011 order issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs authorising the CBI to tap the mobile phone of the petitioner P Kishore, who was then the Managing Director of Everonn Education Limited.
The order was linked to a CBI investigation based on an FIR filed in August 2011, which named Kishore as one of the accused. FIR said, an IRS officer named Andasu Ravinder, who was working as an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, allegedly asked Kishore for a ₹ 50 lakh bribe to help his company avoid paying taxes. The bribe was allegedly to be routed through Uttam Bohra, a friend of Ravinder.
Based on the tip-off, the CBI caught Ravinder and Bohra near Ravinder's home with ₹ 50 lakh which they couldn't explain.
Kishore later challenged the phone-tapping order saying it violated his right to privacy. The Centre and CBI, however, argued that interception was necessary to prevent and investigate corruption.
The Court dismissed this argument, saying that interpreting the law so broadly would weaken the constitutional right to privacy.
"In fact, the use of Section 5(2) of the Act to detect the commission of ordinary crimes de-hors the requirement of public emergency or in the interests of public safety appears to be clearly misconceived."
'Where phone tapping has been found necessary to tackle crimes, such a power has been expressly conferred as for example in certain special statutes like the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999. Section 14 of the said Act authorizes interception of wire, electronic or oral communication for the purposes of investigating into organised crime. The words of Section 5(2) of the Act cannot be strained to include detection of ordinary crime'
(With inputs from Bar and Bench)