Latest news with #IndianTelegraphAct
Time of India
23-07-2025
- Time of India
SIM fraud racket busted, man held for forged Aadhaar cards
Jaipur: Cyber Crime Police arrested a 19-year-old man Wednesday for allegedly operating a fake SIM activation racket using forged Aadhaar documents. SP (Cyber Crime) Shantanu Kumar Singh said that the accused, identified as Ghanshyam Meena from Shrigovindpura of Tonk district, was supplying mobile SIM cards to cybercriminals after creating fake Aadhaar cards with his own photograph and fraudulent details. Singh said the arrest followed a tip-off about a suspect attempting to activate a SIM using forged identity documents at a mobile telecom company's store in Sanganer on Tuesday. The accused sought to link a new mobile number under a postpaid family plan. A verification by the company revealed that the Aadhaar card used bore Meena's photograph, but the name, number, and address did not match earlier records. The telecom operator flagged the suspicious application and coordinated with police to track down the accused. Upon arrest, police seized seven mobile SIM cards, two empty SIM covers, two forged Aadhaar cards, and a Vivo smartphone. Investigation revealed that Meena downloaded Aadhaar cards of unrelated individuals from the internet and altered them using mobile apps to insert his own photograph and fictitious details. He then printed the forged IDs at e-Mitra centres and used them to fraudulently obtain SIM cards from Airtel and Vodafone stores. Meena admitted to selling these SIM cards to others for money. A case was registered under relevant sections of the IT Act and the Indian Telegraph Act at the Cyber Crime Police Station in Jaipur. Police have secured his custody on remand to identify his network of accomplices and the retailers involved in issuing the SIMs.
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.
Mint
03-07-2025
- Mint
Phone-tapping violates right to privacy: Madras Court observes, ‘Can only be used for…'
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 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)
Time of India
02-07-2025
- Time of India
HC rules phone tapping cannot be used in regular crime detection
Chennai: Right to privacy is now an integral part of right to life and personal liberty; therefore, tapping of phone calls cannot be allowed in the regular detection of crime, Madras High Court has said. It can be resorted to only in a public emergency or in the interest of public safety, which are not secretive conditions or situations, Justice N Anand Venkatesh stated. Either of the situations would be apparent to a reasonable person. Covert surveillance of the type conducted in this case cannot fall within the aforesaid two situations contemplated under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, he added. The court made the observations on a plea moved by P Kishore, managing director of Everonn Education Limited, seeking to quash a 2011 order issued by the CBI to intercept his telegraphic conversations and messages. Based on the phone tapping, the CBI arrested Kishore and Andasu Ravindar, who had accepted a bribe of 50 lakh from him to conceal that tax was payable on 116 crore. Opposing the plea, the CBI contended that the interception was necessary to prevent and investigate corruption, which also constitutes a threat to public safety. You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Bank Holidays in Chennai | Public Holidays in Chennai Refusing to concur, the court said that even as per the affidavit of the CBI, the intercepted conversations were not placed before the review committee in terms of Rule 419-A of the Rules. Thus, the govt cannot feign ignorance of the law when it purportedly issued the tapping order. The court added that the effect of a breach of public order would involve a wide spectrum of the public and does not involve a covert operation hatched and carried out in secrecy, such as the case on hand. The CBI, however, requested the court to expand the scope of Section 5(2) of the act to accommodate cases of this nature. To this, the court said, "This court is unable to accept this submission since the boundaries for invasion of a fundamental right through the medium of enacted law is a function of the legislature and not the court." The CBI further argued that even assuming that the tapping order was without jurisdiction, the evidence so collected is admissible since it is a well-settled proposition of law that even illegally collected evidence is admissible provided it is relevant. "An unconstitutional order is void under Article 13 of the Constitution and no rights or liabilities can flow from it," the court held. The court then allowed the plea and quashed the CBI order permitting the tapping of the petitioner's phone.
News18
02-07-2025
- 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:
