Latest news with #TelegraphAct
NDTV
a day ago
- Politics
- NDTV
Phone-Tapping Rampant Under Revanth Reddy, Alleges Opposition Leader
Hyderabad: Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader and former IPS officer RS Praveen Kumar has lodged a formal complaint with the police levelling serious allegations against Telangana's Congress government. In the complaint, he has alleged widespread phone tapping under Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy's administration. Praveen Kumar was among the first to complain about his phone being tapped during the previous BRS government. He has also appeared before the Special Investigation Team that is probing the alleged phone tapping. While the SIT's primary focus has been on surveillance under the former BRS government, Praveen Kumar has used the opportunity to expand the scope of the investigation. He has claimed that the present Congress government is utilizing "high-end dark web tools" to illegally intercept the communications of its own ministers, opposition leaders, and even businessmen. He has submitted a written complaint to the SIT, reportedly including video evidence of Chief Minister Revanth Reddy allegedly admitting to surveillance. Praveen Kumar cited instances where Mr Reddy reportedly knew about private conversations between ministers, later confronting one of them with the details. He questioned how such information could have been accessed without illicit phone tapping. He also alleged that a journalist was reprimanded by the Chief Minister for speaking to another BRS leader, again raising suspicions of surveillance. The BRS leader also pointed to media reports suggesting that malware had been planted on ministers' devices to intercept calls and messages. He urged the SIT to summon the affected ministers and conduct forensic examinations of their phones to uncover the truth. The complaint from Praveen Kumar adds a new dimension to the already complex phone-tapping investigation in Telangana. Previously, Chief Minister Revanth Reddy had stated his willingness to cooperate with the SIT if he received a notice, emphasizing that while phone tapping itself isn't illegal, strict procedures must be followed. The BRS has been vocal in demanding a High Court-monitored inquiry into the phone-tapping allegations and has called for the government to submit a sealed list to the court detailing whose phones are being tapped. They have emphasized Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, which only permits phone tapping in the interest of national security. The SIT now faces the challenging task of investigating not only the alleged phone tapping during the previous administration, but also the fresh accusations of ongoing surveillance under the current government, making the probe even more politically charged.
Hans India
7 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Phone Tapping: BRS leaders to knock at Guv's door to complain against CM
Hyderabad: Leaders of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) announced plans to approach Governor Jishnu Dev Varma to highlight alleged phone tapping activities within Telangana. The party claims that Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy, with assistance from the central BJP leadership, is not only tapping the phones of BRS leaders but also those of his own cabinet colleagues. During a press conference at the party's Telangana Bhavan office, BRS leader RS Praveen Kumar and others demanded an inquiry into the allegations by a sitting judge of the High Court. Praveen Kumar specifically accused Revanth Reddy of tapping the phones of key BRS figures and members of his own cabinet. He cited an instance where Revanth Reddy reportedly knew about a casual conversation between two ministers through tapping, subsequently questioning one of them about it. Praveen Kumar noted that as Chief Minister and Home Minister, all alleged phone tapping falls under Revanth Reddy's purview. He further alleged that the BJP at the Centre was also involved in tapping the phones of BRS and Congress leaders in the state, claiming Revanth Reddy's actions are supported by the BJP. The BRS leader further alleged that the Chief Minister reprimanded a journalist stationed in New Delhi for speaking to party leader T Harish Rao over the phone. Praveen Kumar questioned how Revanth Reddy could have known about the conversation if phone tapping was not involved. He also raised concerns about the ongoing phone tapping case (Panjagutta PS 243 case), stating he received a notice on 14 July, yet a Telugu newspaper reported it on 7 July. This, he argued, suggests premature leaking of investigation details. Praveen Kumar also voiced suspicions about the involvement of Prime Minister Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah in Revanth Reddy's alleged phone tapping, and suggested that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's phone might also be under surveillance by Revanth Reddy. The BRS demanded that the government submit a sealed list to the High Court detailing whose phones are being tapped. They also called for a committee, comprising the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, a High Court judge, and relevant officials, to monitor phone tapping in accordance with the Telegraph Act. Praveen Kumar highlighted Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, which permits phone tapping only if unavoidable in the interest of national security. Praveen Kumar reiterated the BRS's demand for an investigation by a sitting High Court judge into the phone tapping allegations.
The Hindu
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
BRS leader Praveen Kumar demands Govt. handover phone-tapping case to CBI
HYDERABAD Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader R.S. Praveen Kumar has demanded that the State government hand over the phone tapping case being probed by a special investigation team of the State Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) since Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy himself is facing similar allegations now. Along with the CBI inquiry, the government must institute an inquiry with a sitting judge of the High Court in the matter as the Chief Minister appears to be get the phones of his Cabinet colleagues, Congress party leaders as also those of Opposition parties tapped with the help of private agencies instead of the State Police under Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, he said addressing a press conference here on Tuesday. Suspecting that Mr. Revanth Reddy was getting the phones tapped with the help of Pegasus spyware, the former IPS officer alleged that the he was doing so with the help of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at the Centre and felt that Union Home Minister Amit Shah could also be in the know of the tapping going on in Telangana. Alleging that his phone was also being tapped as he received notice from the SIT in the ongoing phone tapping case on July 14, but a vernacular newspaper backing Mr. Revanth Reddy wrote about it on July 7 itself. He stated that his phone was tapped while he was in Panjagutta PS in the matter of a case. The BRS would also bring the matter of phone tapping by the Revanth Reddy government to the Governor's notice.
Indian Express
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Explained: Law on phone-tapping, and two HC rulings
Can the government tap the phones of suspects to gather evidence before a crime is committed? Last week, in two separate cases, the Madras and the Delhi High Courts gave varying answers to this question. What is the law on phone tapping in India, and how have High Courts interpreted it? The law on tapping The government's powers to intercept communication is laid down in — and circumscribed by — three pieces of legislation. The 140-year-old Telegraph Act was originally meant for intercepting telegrams, but over the years it has been expanded to include telephonic conversations. Section 5(2) of the Act states that both state and central governments can, 'on the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety', authorise interception. Given that the right to free speech and the right to privacy are fundamental rights, any encroachment on these rights through surveillance is only permissible on narrow constitutional grounds. These grounds — the interest of the sovereignty, and integrity of India; the security of the state; friendly relations with foreign states; public order; or preventing incitement to the commission of an offence — are enumerated as 'reasonable restrictions' under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Section 5(2) of the Act also mentions these grounds for authorising interception. For actions to be deemed a threat to 'public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety' and allow for interception, they have to necessarily fall into one of the reasonable restrictions. The High Court rulings Both the Madras and Delhi High Court cases involved 'preventing incitement to the commission of an offence', which is one of the valid grounds in law for authorising phone tapping. Both courts separately examined the nature of economic offences to determine if they could be deemed as 'public emergency' or 'public safety.' While the Delhi High Court upheld the interception order, the Madras High Court quashed it. DELHI HC: On June 26, the Delhi High Court rejected the plea of an accused who challenged a trial court's order accepting evidence gathered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) through phone-tapping. The case related to the accused allegedly seeking to secure a sub-contract for the redevelopment of the ITPO complex into an Integrated Exhibition-Cum-Convention Centre through corrupt means. In 2017, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had authorised interception of his phone on the suspicion that he was attempting to bribe a public official. Justice Amit Mahajan stated in his order that given the contract was for Rs 2,149.93 crore, 'the economic scale of the offence, in the opinion of this Court, satisfies the threshold of public safety'. 'The threat posed by corruption cannot be understated. Corruption has a pervasive impact on a nation's economy and the same can impact anything from infrastructural development to resource allocation. 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,' the High Court said. Madras HC: The Madras High Court on July 2 quashed an interception order issued by the MHA in 2011 for intercepting the phone of an accused in a bribery case. The accused was allegedly attempting to pay a bribe of Rs 50 lakh to a senior Income Tax officer to help the accused hide undisclosed taxable income. Justice Anand Venkatesh in his order stated that a 'public emergency' must be construed narrowly. In the petitioner's case, the MHA's objective to deal with tax evasion would not qualify as a 'public emergency' under Section 5(2) of the Act, the court said. The court also flagged in its order a press note that was released by the Press Information Bureau in April 2011, four months before the MHA order, saying that the law does not allow the monitoring of conversations through phone-tapping 'to merely detect tax evasion'. Additionally, the court said that the phone-tap was unlawful since it did not comply with the procedural standards set by the Supreme Court in a 1997 ruling. Once a phone-tap order is declared unlawful, any information gathered through the tap cannot be treated as evidence in a court of law. Procedural norms In its landmark 1997 ruling in People's Union Of Civil Liberties vs Union Of India, the Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act. While it upheld the law, the court laid down procedural safeguards for its application. The SC said that an order for phone tapping can be issued only by the home secretary of the state and central governments, and that this power cannot be delegated to officers below the rank of joint secretary. The authorising authority must also consider whether the information could 'reasonably be acquired by other means'. Within two months of ordering a phone tap, a committee comprising the cabinet secretary, the law secretary and the telecom secretary shall review the order. At the state level, the committee shall comprise the chief secretary, law secretary and another member other than the home secretary. The scrutiny by the board has also been included under Rule 419-A (17) of the Telegraph Rules.
News18
03-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
'State Can't Tap Phones Just To Prevent Corruption In Violation Of Law': Madras High Court
Last Updated: The HC said phone tapping is permitted only under Section 5(2) of Telegraph Act when there is a clear public emergency or threat to public safety, backed by reasons and due process In a significant judgment that reiterates constitutional protections in the digital age, the Madras High Court has quashed a 2011 phone-tapping order issued by the union ministry of home affairs against a private company executive, holding that the interception lacked the mandatory threshold of 'public emergency" or 'public safety" as required under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act. The bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh opined that the Centre's authorisation to intercept the phone conversations of P Kishore—then managing director of Everonn Education Ltd—was issued without sufficient justification and in violation of the constitutional right to privacy under Article 21. A bribery FIR was registered by the CBI in August 2011 involving an IRS officer (A1), who allegedly demanded Rs 50 lakh to shield the company from tax scrutiny. Kishore (A2) was accused of arranging the bribe, and a friend of the officer (A3) was intercepted carrying the cash. However, the CBI did not apprehend Kishore in possession of the bribe or at the scene. The Centre had authorised the interception on the grounds of 'public safety" and 'preventing incitement to the commission of an offence". However, the court noted that these terms cannot be used in a vague or routine manner. Citing the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in People's Union for Civil Liberties and KS Puttaswamy, the judge held that such surveillance must meet the constitutional tests of necessity, proportionality, and legality. 'Neither the occurrence of public emergency nor interest of public safety is a secretive condition… either would be apparent to a reasonable person," the court observed, referring to the SC precedents and added that no such justification was visible in the interception order, which appeared to be 'mechanical" and 'cyclostyled". Further, the high court held that procedural safeguards under Rule 419-A of the Telegraph Rules, which require review by a committee and periodic oversight, were also not followed, thereby rendering the order illegal. Importantly, the court rejected the authorities' argument that even assuming that the order under Section 5(2) of the Act was without jurisdiction, the evidence so collected was admissible since it is a well-settled proposition of law that even illegally collected evidence is admissible provided it is relevant. The court opined that once the surveillance order was found to be unconstitutional, any material or evidence collected as a result of it would also be tainted. The HC also pointed out that in the case at hand, the petitioner was only accused of an offence; hence, the presumption of innocence still applied in his favour. Referring to the illegality of the interception, the bench held, 'Where the tapping of phones is found to have been done in violation of Section 5(2) of the Act, the order would be clearly unconstitutional. An unconstitutional order is void under Article 13 and no rights or liabilities can flow from it." First Published:
