Legality of Phone Tapping

GS2 – Polity

Context

Conflicting judgments by the Delhi and Madras High Courts have reignited the debate on the legal contours of phone tapping.

Delhi HC Verdict:

Upheld the admissibility of phone-tapping evidence collected by CBI in a corruption case, citing the serious national impact of corruption.

Madras HC Verdict:

Struck down a 2011 MHA interception order, declaring it legally unjustified. The court held that:

• The phrase “public emergency” cannot be interpreted loosely (e.g., tax evasion doesn’t qualify).
• The procedure violated the 1997 Supreme Court guidelines.

1997 Supreme Court Ruling – PUCL vs Union of India:

The SC upheld Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act but laid down strict procedural safeguards:

• Authorization: Only the Home Secretary of the Centre/State can approve interception.
• Alternative Means: Authority must ensure information cannot be reasonably obtained otherwise.
• Review Committee: A high-level committee (Cabinet/Law/Telecom Secretaries at the Centre; Chief Secretary at the State) must review within 2 months.
• Rule 419-A(17) of the Telegraph Rules incorporates these checks.