Constitutional Privacy vs. State Surveillance: IRAC Analysis of Vinit Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2019)

 Issue

The primary issues before the Bombay High Court were:

• Whether the three interception orders issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 violated the petitioner's fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

• Whether the Central Bureau of Investigation failed to follow due procedure established under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act and Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules

• Whether evidence obtained through allegedly unlawful interception could be used in criminal proceeding.

Rule

The legal framework governing telephone interception includes:

Print Page

Supreme Court: What is doctrine of proportionality as per Indian constitutional law?

 In the case of Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Ors. (supra), this Court observed thus:

60. .......Thus, while examining as to whether the impugned provisions of the statute and Rules amount to reasonable restrictions and are brought out in the interest of the general public, the exercise that is required to be undertaken is the balancing of fundamental right to carry on occupation on the one hand and the restrictions imposed on the other hand. This is what is known as "doctrine of proportionality". Jurisprudentially, "proportionality" can be defined as the set of Rules determining the necessary and sufficient conditions for limitation of a constitutionally protected right by a law to be constitutionally permissible. According to Aharon Barak (former Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Israel), there are four sub-components of proportionality which need to be satisfied [Aharon Barak, Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitation (Cambridge University Press 2012).], a limitation of a constitutional right will be constitutionally permissible if:

(i) it is designated for a proper purpose;

(ii) the measures undertaken to effectuate such a limitation are rationally connected to the fulfilment of that purpose;

(iii) the measures undertaken are necessary in that there are no alternative measures that may similarly achieve that same purpose with a lesser degree of limitation; and finally

(iv) there needs to be a proper relation ("proportionality stricto sensu" or "balancing") between the importance of achieving the proper purpose and the social importance of preventing the limitation on the constitutional right. {Para 85}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022,

Decided On: 13.11.2024

In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.

Author: B.R. Gavai, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1211/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page