Latest news with #PKishore
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.
Time of India
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Telephone tapping constitutes a violation of right to privacy: Madras HC
The Madras High Court declared telephone tapping a privacy violation. Justice Venkatesh cited Article 21 of the Constitution. He referenced the Telegraph Act's Section 5(2). The court quashed a Union government order authorizing the tapping of P Kishore's phone. This case involved bribery allegations. The judge noted violations of Telegraph Rules. Intercepted conversations cannot be used as evidence. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Madras High Court on Wednesday held that telephone tapping constitutes a violation of the right to privacy unless justified by a procedure established by law. Justice N Anand Venkatesh also observed that the right to privacy is now an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the judge said section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act authorises interception of telephones on the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interests of public safety. Both these contingencies were not secretive conditions or situations. Either of the situations would be apparent to a reasonable laid down in paragraph 28 of the decision of the Apex court in People's Union for Civil Liberties, it was only when the above two situations exist that the authority may pass an order directing interception of messages after recording its satisfaction that it was necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence, he a petition filed by P Kishore, Managing Director of Everonn Education Limited, the judge quashed an order of the union government, which authorised tapping of the mobile phone of the petitioner, in connection with a case relating to bribery and corruption, probed by the CBI, involving an Assistant Commissioner of Income judge said in the instant case, the impugned order dated August 12, 2011 does not fall either within the rubric of "public emergency" or "in the interests of public safety" as explained by the Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties. The facts disclose that it was a covert operation/secretive situation for detection of crime, which would not be apparent to any reasonable 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 the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties, which has been approved by the Constitution Bench of the SC in K S Puttaswamy case, the judge judge said the authorities have also contravened Rule 419-A(17) of the Telegraph Rules by failing to place the intercepted material before the Review Committee within the stipulated time to examine as to whether the interception was made in compliance with Section 5(2) of the a consequence, the impugned order must necessarily be set aside as unconstitutional and one without jurisdiction. Besides violating Article 21, it was also ultra vires Section 5(2) of the Act besides being in violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 419-A of the Rules, the judge judge said it follows that the intercepted conversations collected pursuant to the impugned order in violation of Section 5(2) of the Act and Rule 419-A(17) of the Rules shall not be used for any purposes judge said it was, however, made clear that the above direction shall have no bearing on the other material that has been collected by the CBI subsequent to and independent of the intercepted call records, which shall be considered by the trial court on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
