In-depth analysis of Madras High Court’s verdict on phone tapping and the right to privacy

In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Managing Director of Everonn Education Ltd., contested an order issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs. In-depth analysis of Madras High Court’s verdict on phone tapping and the right to privacy, This order, made under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 419-A of the Telegraph Rules, 1951, authorized the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to intercept his mobile phone communications. The petitioner argued that this surveillance infringed upon his fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Justice A. Anand Venkatesh, presiding over the matter, emphasized that the right to privacy is a vital part of the right to life and liberty. He reaffirmed that any breach of this right must be legally sanctioned and satisfy tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality. The Court referred to the landmark decision in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997), which held that telephone tapping amounts to an invasion of privacy unless justified under specific legal conditions.

Section 5(2) permits interception only during a “public emergency” or “in the interest of public safety,” which are not secretive conditions but are meant to be objectively identifiable. However, in the present case, the interception was conducted as part of a covert operation to detect a bribery case involving CBI officials and the petitioner. This context, being a secretive investigation, did not meet the thresholds defined in Section 5(2). The Court ruled that using the provision for routine crime detection fell outside its intended scope.

The order authorizing the tapping merely reproduced statutory language without any specific factual assessment or demonstration of urgency, which, according to the Court, showed a lack of genuine application of mind. It stressed that a vague and unsubstantiated reference to “public safety” was insufficient to justify such an intrusion into an individual’s private life.

Moreover, Rule 419-A(17) requires that intercepted material be reviewed by a designated committee to ensure compliance with Section 5(2). In this case, the CBI failed to present the material for such review. The Court held that this procedural lapse further rendered the interception illegal and unauthorized.

As a consequence, the order dated 12-08-2011 was quashed for being unconstitutional and ultra vires both Section 5(2) of the Act and Rule 419-A. All evidence gathered from the phone tapping was barred from use in any proceedings. However, any other evidence independently obtained by the CBI could still be evaluated on its own merit by the Trial Court, unaffected by this decision.

The judgment underscores the importance of upholding privacy rights, particularly in the context of surveillance, and stresses strict compliance with both procedural and substantive safeguards laid down in law. Courts, the judgment concluded, are guardians of fundamental rights—not instruments to facilitate executive overreach.

Case details: [P. Kishore v.Secretary to Government of India & Ors., W.P. No. 143 of 2018, decided on 02-07-2025]