While dealing with the writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution read with Article 227 of the Indian Constitution, in order to seek a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction against the order dated January 30, 2018, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, wherein the Ministry permitted interception of telephonic calls of the petitioner, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5 (2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 419 (A) of the Indian Telegraph Rules 2007, the Delhi High Court observed that that for the purpose of making an order for interception of messages in exercise of powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, the occurrence of any public emergency or the existence of a public safety interest are the sine qua non.
In view of the same, the Court dismissed the instant writ petition moved by the petitioner before the present Court.
A Single Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh dismissed the present writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution read with Article 227 of the Indian Constitution, in order to seek a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction against the order dated January 30, 2018, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, wherein the Ministry permitted interception of telephonic calls of the petitioner, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5 (2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 419 (A) of the Indian Telegraph Rules 2007, by observing that that the present matter pertains to corruption and the same was held to be a matter which endangers public safety since economic crimes ultimately affect the economic stability and safety of the country and its citizens .
The present criminal petition was preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution read with Article 227 of the Indian Constitution, whereby the petitioner was seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction against the order dated January 30, 2018, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, wherein the Ministry permitted interception of telephonic calls of the petitioner, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5 (2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 419 (A) of the Indian Telegraph Rules 2007. The petitioner further prayed that the interception calls, messages obtained / recorded there under shall be destroyed and shall not be used for any purpose.
Facts of the present case were such that permission for interception of telephonic calls of the petitioner was granted by the MHA under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and as per the procedure laid down under Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules by order dated January 30, 2018. In pursuance of the same, FIR was registered under Sections 7/ 8/ 12/13(2) read with 13 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Consequently, a raid was conducted on the same day and four persons including the petitioner were taken into custody. However, bail was granted to the petitioner by the Special Judge. Subsequently, charge sheet was filed by the Special Judge on December 23, 2019 . The perusal of the charge sheet and the FIR indicated that the case of the first respondent was based on the interception of the telephonic conversation amongst the accused persons upon taking prior approval from the MHA through the impugned order.
The Special Judge took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 7/8/12/13(1) read with 13(2) of the PC Act and substantive offences thereof, hence the present appeal was instituted by the petitioner.
After hearing the submissions of the parties at length and after considering the material present on record, the Court was of the view that under the provisions Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction in furtherance of the proceedings initiated against the impugned order passed by the MHA, through the calls of the petitioner was intercepted by the virtue of powers conferred under Section 5 (2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
In relation to the same, the Court took into consideration the above stated Section. While considering the same, the Court observed that for the purpose of making an order for interception of messages in exercise of powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, the occurrence of any public emergency or the existence of a public safety interest are the sine qua non. Thereafter, the Court also referred to Rule 419-A of the Telegraph Rules along with the relevant provisions Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 under which the petitioner was arraigned in the present case at hand.
The issue that was put forth by the petitioner before the present Court was that his telephonic calls were intercepted in the exercise of powers conferred under Section 5 (2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 419-A of the Telegraph Rules hindered the Right to Privacy of the petitioner enshrined under fundamental right to life and personal liberty. To deal with the same, the Court re - produced the relevant portion of the impugned order as well.
In view of the same, the Court observed that the disclosure of elaborate reasons for interception orders would be against the modified disclosure requirements of procedural fairness which have been universally deemed acceptable for the protection of other facets of public including the source of information leading to the detection of crime or other wrongdoing, sensitive intelligence information and other information supplied in confidence for the purpose of government or discharge of certain public functions.
Further reliance was placed on the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India wherein the Apex Court observed that the fundamental rights under Article 19(1) of the Constitution are subject to the restrictions that may be placed under Article 19(2) to (6) of the Constitution.
Similarly in the case of A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras, the Supreme Court observed that Article 19 of the Constitution gives a list of individual liberties and prescribes in the various clauses the restrictions that may be placed upon them by law, so that they may not conflict with the public welfare or general morality.
Similar proposition was enunciated in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India wherein the Apex Court opined that the right to privacy is subject to reasonable regulations made by the State to protect legitimate State interests or public interest.
Coming back to the facts of the present case, the Court stated that it was pertinent to note that the present matter pertains to corruption and the same was held to be a matter which endangers public safety since economic crimes ultimately affect the economic stability and safety of the country and its citizens as held in the case, Sajay Bhandari vs The Secretary of Govt. of India .
Keeping in view the aforesaid observations, the Court concluded by observing that the impugned order of the interception as well as the interception carried out were fair , reasonable and in accordance with law. The law of the land weighs in the favour of the public interest over certain individual interest, the Court remarked. It was further submitted by the Court that as per the present case also, the conflict of interest was between the interest of the public and individual before this Court. However, the material on record as well as the precedents reflects the fact that the interception carried out by the respondent was in accordance with the provisions Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 2007, the Court noted.
Thus, the instant writ petition was dismissed and the said order was passed bearing in mind the reasonable restrictions that are applicable on the fundamental rights, the Court opined.
Case name: SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Picture Source :
