The Madras High Court quashed a 2011 MHA phone-tapping order, asserting it violated Article 21's right to privacy. The court ruled that current law prohibits tapping for secret crime detection. Surveillance is only lawful during public emergencies or for public safety, and non-compliance with review procedures renders it unconstitutional.
Copyright infringement not intended
Picture Courtesy: INDIAN EXPRESS
The Madras High Court quashed a 2011 MHA order that authorized the phone tapping of petitioner P Kishore.
Current law does not permit tapping telephonic conversations or messages for "covert operations" or "secretive situations aimed at the detection of crimes."
Phone tapping violates an individual's right to privacy, unless a "procedure established by law" justifies it.
Phone tapping is permissible only under two strict conditions: during a "public emergency" or in the "interest of public safety." These conditions, as clarified by the Supreme Court in the PUCL case, must be "clear to any reasonable person" and not secretive or abstract.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) argued that surveillance was lawful and necessary to investigate corruption involving public officials, considering it a matter of public interest. However, the court rejected this, stating that the scope of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, cannot expand to cover secretive investigations, regardless of the gravity of the offense.
Pre-Puttaswamy Era => The right to privacy was considered a "nebulous" and secondary right, without a clear status as a fundamental right.
K.S. Puttaswamy v/s Union of India (2017) => The nine-judge bench ruling unequivocally declared the right to privacy a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution. This judgment provides a constitutional basis for challenging state surveillance.
Maneka Gandhi Ruling (1978) => Recently, the Madras High Court also quotes the Maneka Gandhi verdict, that any "procedure established by law" that curtails fundamental rights must be "just, fair, and reasonable." This ensures that even where a law permits a breach, the procedure followed must adhere to constitutional morality.
Indian Telegraph Act 1885 => Section 5(2) empower the government to intercept messages for reasons of public emergency, public safety, or 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 offense.
Indian Telegraph Rules 1951 => Rule 419-A mandates that interception orders can only be issued by the Union Home Secretary or a State Home Secretary. It also requires the intercepted information to be presented before a Review Committee (comprising central or state government officials) within a specified period to ensure accountability and prevent misuse.
Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules 2009 => Govern the interception, monitoring, and decryption of digital information under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v/s Union of India (1997) => Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines for telephone tapping to prevent misuse. These guidelines include:
Balancing Security and Privacy => Striking the right balance between national security/crime detection needs and individual privacy rights remains a persistent challenge.
Lack of Independent Oversight => The existing Review Committees are largely executive-controlled, raising questions about their independence and effectiveness in preventing executive overreach. Activists and legal experts advocate for judicial or parliamentary oversight.
Potential for Misuse => The broad terminology of some provisions in the Telegraph Act, coupled with inadequate oversight, creates a potential for surveillance to be misused for political or personal reasons.
Outdated Laws => The primary law, the Indian Telegraph Act, dates back to 1885, predating modern communication technologies, it struggles to address the complexities of digital communication in the 21st century.
Absence of a Comprehensive Surveillance Law => India lacks a dedicated, comprehensive law for surveillance that clearly defines the grounds, procedures, oversight mechanisms, and accountability for all forms of surveillance, including electronic and digital.
India needs a modern, robust law that clearly defines the grounds for surveillance, establishes strong, independent oversight mechanisms, and ensures accountability for any misuse, and this law should cover all forms of communication interception and data collection.
Establish a truly independent oversight body, with judicial or parliamentary representation, to review and authorize surveillance requests and ensure adherence to legal procedures.
Establish mechanisms for periodic review and update of surveillance procedures to adapt to technological advancements and evolving privacy standards.
Must Read Articles:
Source:
|
PRACTICE QUESTION Q. "Balancing national security interests with the fundamental right to privacy is a continuous challenge in modern democracies." Critically analyze. 150 words |
© 2025 iasgyan. All right reserved
