HC dismisses challenge to interception of telephone calls by accused in corruption case

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition to quash a central government order permitting the interception of telephonic calls of a corruption suspect, which resulted in the CBI case against him, saying that the law of the land weighs in the favor of the public interest over certain individual interest.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh stated that the interception order was passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs in the light of the compelling reasons for public security which are protected as reasonable restrictions upon the exercise of fundamental rights.

The accused, who claimed that the interception violated his right to privacy, prayed for a direction that the intercepted messages and calls be destroyed and not used for any purposes including the trial against him as it was procured illegally.

The court said that the order of interception, as well as interception, was carried out in a manner that was fair, reasonable, and in accordance with law and that the Telegraph Rules provide for "extreme secrecy, the utmost care and precaution in the matter of interception as it affects privacy".

"The law of the land weighs in the favour of the public interest over certain individual interests. In the instant matter as well, the conflict of interest seems to be between the interest of the public and the individual before this Court. However, the material on record as well as the precedents reflect 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," said the court in its order dated June 13.

The court observed that disclosure of elaborate reasons for such orders would be against the requirements of procedural fairness concerning the protection of 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.

"Therefore, in light of the facts of the case along with the material on record, the instant writ petition seeking quashing of order No. 14/3/97- CBI dated 30th January 2018 issued by MHA stands dismissed as the said order was passed in light of the compelling reasons of public security protected under the clause of reasonable restrictions upon the exercise of Fundamental Rights. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed," the court stated.

"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 the 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. Furthermore, Rule 419 A of the Telegraph Rules provides for extreme secrecy, the utmost care, and precaution in the matter of interception as it affects privacy," it added.

The court noted that as per the Centre's stand, the order was forwarded to the Review Committee and no adverse direction was passed by them.

The petitioner, represented by senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, assailed the January 2018 interception order on the ground that the reasons for "public emergency" or "public safety" were neither recorded nor attracted in the present case and that the substantive, as well as procedural safeguards under the law, were violated which violated his fundamental right to privacy.

The court was informed that pursuant to the order, an FIR was registered by the CBI for the alleged commission of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and a raid was conducted after which the petitioner and several other persons were taken into custody.

The petitioner was subsequently granted bail and a charge sheet was filed in the matter.

The CBI submitted that interception was valid, just, and fair in view of the public interest and it was done after it was revealed that he was in conversation with certain persons regarding corruption and bribery.