The Madras High Court on Wednesday ruled that phone tapping, even in the course of a criminal investigation, amounts to a violation of the fundamental right to privacy, unless explicitly permitted by a procedure established by law.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh quashed a 2011 phone interception order issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) against Chennai resident P. Kishore, who was an accused in a bribery case involving a senior Income Tax officer. The court held that covert surveillance in this context was not legally justifiable, emphasizing that even serious offences must be investigated within the bounds of the Constitution.
“There can be no doubt that telephone tapping would infringe Article 21 unless such infringement has the sanction of a procedure established by law,” said Justice Venkatesh.
Existing Laws Don’t Permit Surveillance for General Crime Detection
The judge observed that Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act and Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules allow interception only in cases of public emergency or public safety — not merely for detecting criminal activity.
The court noted that neither of these exceptions applied in Kishore’s case, even though the MHA argued that the tapping was done to “prevent incitement to commit an offence.”
“Public emergency or public safety cannot be secretive conditions,” said Justice Venkatesh, citing previous Supreme Court rulings, including in PUCL vs Union of India and the landmark Puttaswamy judgment, which cemented privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
The Case: Bribery Allegation and CBI Surveillance
The case stemmed from a 2011 CBI FIR that alleged IRS officer Andasu Ravinder, then Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, had demanded a ₹50 lakh bribe from Kishore to help his company evade taxes. The bribe was allegedly routed through Ravinder’s associate Uttam Bohra.
The CBI intercepted Ravinder and Bohra with ₹50 lakh in cash, but Kishore was not at the scene, and no money was found in his possession. Despite this, his phone was tapped as part of the investigation.
Kishore later challenged the interception, asserting that it violated his right to privacy. The MHA maintained it had acted within the legal framework and in the public interest.
“Surveillance Must Meet Constitutional Standards”
Justice Venkatesh strongly rejected the notion that routine surveillance of private individuals could be justified under vague claims of “preventing incitement.” He stressed the need for robust legal safeguards to prevent misuse of surveillance powers by law enforcement.
“The Constitution guarantees personal liberty. This cannot be overridden casually or secretly, even in the name of justice,” he said.
The court also questioned the lack of transparency and accountability in the MHA’s decision-making, pointing out that constitutional rights must be interpreted in a contemporary context, citing Justice S.K. Kaul’s concurrence in the Puttaswamy case.
This verdict reinforces growing judicial emphasis on upholding civil liberties amid rising concerns over mass surveillance, and signals that phone tapping cannot be a tool of convenience for investigative agencies without strict adherence to the rule of law.