P.Kishore ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to Government
Background
The Madras High Court, in a significant
judgment, quashed a government order authorizing the interception of a
corporate managing director’s phone in a bribery investigation. The order was
issued under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885, and Rule 419A of the
Telegraph Rules, 1951. The petitioner challenged the legality of the phone
tapping, arguing it violated his fundamental right to privacy under Article 21
of the Constitution.
Evolution of the Right to Privacy
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh’s judgment
provides a sweeping historical and constitutional analysis of privacy:
·
Common Law Roots: The right to privacy was traced back
to English common law, notably Entick v.
Carrington (1765), which established the sanctity of private property and
personal space.
·
US Jurisprudence: The judgment referenced US cases like Olmstead v. United States (1928) and Katz v. United States (1967), which
recognized privacy in communications as a constitutional right.
·
Indian Context: The court reviewed the evolution from M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1964), which initially
denied a constitutional right to privacy, to Gobind v. State of M.P. (1975), R.
Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), and the watershed People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v.
Union of India (1997), which recognized privacy as part of Article 21.
·
Puttaswamy (2017): The Supreme Court’s nine-judge bench
in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
unequivocally declared privacy a fundamental right, overruling earlier
restrictive precedents.
Key Legal Principles from the Judgment
1. Phone Tapping = Invasion of Privacy
·
The court
held that telephone tapping is a direct
infringement of the right to privacy under Article 21, unless it strictly
follows “procedure established by law.”
·
The right
to privacy includes the right to hold private conversations over the phone,
free from unauthorized state intrusion.
2. Strict Conditions for Interception
·
Section
5(2) of the Telegraph Act allows interception only on the occurrence of a “public emergency” or “in the interest of public
safety.”
·
These are
not secretive or subjective conditions; they must be apparent to a reasonable person and relate to situations affecting
the public at large, not just isolated criminal investigations.
3. Rejection of Broad “Public Safety”
Claims
·
The
government’s argument that corruption cases threaten public safety was
rejected. The court clarified that routine
criminal investigations, including bribery, do not meet the threshold of
“public emergency” or “public safety” as required by law.
·
The court
emphasized that expanding these terms to cover ordinary crimes would erode
constitutional protections.
4. Proportionality, Necessity, and
Review
·
Any
restriction on privacy must be proportionate,
necessary, and subject to procedural safeguards.
·
The order
authorizing interception must show independent
application of mind—template or “cyclostyled” orders are invalid.
·
Review Committee oversight under Rule
419A is mandatory. Failure
to place intercepted material before the committee vitiates the entire process.
5. Consequences of Illegal Phone
Tapping
·
The court
held that evidence obtained through
unconstitutional phone tapping cannot be used for any purpose.
·
The
“fruits of the poisonous tree” doctrine, which excludes evidence obtained by
violating fundamental rights, is gaining traction in Indian law post-Puttaswamy.
·
The
judgment cited precedents from Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, and Rajasthan High
Courts, all holding that intercepted material obtained in violation of law must
be destroyed and cannot be relied upon in criminal proceedings.
Practical Takeaways
·
Phone tapping orders must pass the
“public emergency or public safety” test. Routine law enforcement needs do not suffice.
·
Template-based authorizations are
illegal. Each
order must reflect genuine, case-specific reasoning.
·
Review Committee oversight is not
optional. Skipping
this step renders the interception and any evidence obtained void.
·
Evidence from illegal phone tapping is
inadmissible. The
state cannot benefit from violating constitutional rights.
Broader Constitutional Significance
This judgment is a constitutional compass for privacy and personal liberty in India.
It:
·
Reaffirms
that state power is not absolute—even
in the name of law enforcement, fundamental rights cannot be overridden by
administrative convenience.
·
Ensures
that privacy is not a privilege, but a
right—and any state intrusion must be justified, proportionate, and
rigorously reviewed.
·
Signals a
shift towards greater judicial scrutiny
of surveillance powers, aligning Indian law with global privacy standards.
No comments:
Post a Comment