People’s Union for Civil Liberties Vs Union of India & Ors.

18^th December 1996

Petitioner: People’s for Civil Liberties

Defendant: Union of India & ors.

Statutes Referred:

Indian Telegraph Act, 1885

The Indian Constitution

Cases Referred:

Munn v. Illinois (1877) 94 U.S. 113, 142

Kharak Singh v. State of U.P and ors. , 1963 AIR 1295

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597

Facts of the Cases

1. The petitioner People’s Union for Civil Liberties has filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court of India, stating that the activities like telephone tapping that were happened in the recent past times. Which was challenged by the petitioner under section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
2. And alternatively it was analyzed that the provisions shall follow the procedural safeguards to eliminate arbitrariness and to reduce indiscrimination against telephone tapping, the writ petition was filed regarding the “Tapping of Politicians Phones” by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Issues Raised

1. Whether the tapping or intervening the calls will be amounted to Breach of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?
2. Whether this type od restriction will fall under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution?
3. Whether the section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 is constitutional both in substantive and procedural aspects?

Parties Contention

Petitioner

1. The petitioner has highlighted the matter of Right to Privacy which is a fundamental right that is guaranteed under Article 19(1) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. And according to the petitioner, section 5(2) of the Act was declared as unconstitutional which was not appropriate as safeguard to right to privacy is very essential to maintain.
3. So the petitioner has pleaded for the fair and reasonable procedure should be conducted in the matter of right to privacy. As the prior judicial sanction ex-parte in nature is only way to safeguard the arbitrariness and unreasonableness.

Defendant

1. The defendant has stated that the security is the utmost important priority of all the times as the soverienity of India must be maintained.
2. So the defendant has questioned that will the procedural safeguards are sufficient to rule the arbitrary under the act or not? It was also mentioned that under section 5(2) of the act, it clearly states that the conditions must be sine qua for the better manner of the exercise of the provision. That’s why the safeguards were short to save the verge of the arbitrariness.

Judgement

1. The court has taken the decision that the Home secretary, Government of India and the State Government must pass a formal order for the proper investigation in the matter of Telephone Tapping under the section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act.
2. The order must ensure that the course of intervention by public telecommunication system must be mentioned in the order. The order shall include all the parties to whom it may concerned.
3. It is essential to propulgate that details that were necessary, only that information must be acquired to judge the necessity of the orders.
4. The premises should also be specified from which the transmission of communication was happening.
5. The total period of the order must not exceed the time period of 6 months from the date of issue.
6. The use of the intervened material must be limited to a specific limit according to the Section 5(2) of the Act.

Rule of Law

The basic rule of law was applied here that the telephone tapping infringes the right to privacy especially in the matter of higher authorities. So the court had restricted the degree of intervention. Rather than the required information, the other acquired information shall not be interpreted.

Comment

According to my opinion, the court has taken the appropriate decision regarding the protection of right to privacy about the telephone tapping.

Conclusion

To conclude the above case, the court has taken the appropriate decision that the intervention must be done with the prior approval of the Government and the state government with the reasonable safeguard to right to privacy under the section-5(2) of the Act. And this system will also eliminate the arbitrariness and unreasonableness of the matter.