<p>Chennai: Observing that phone tapping violates the right to privacy of an individual, unless it was justified by a procedure established by law, the Madras High Court on Wednesday quashed a phone tapping order issued by the Union Home Ministry in 2011 in connection with a CBI investigation involving an alleged Rs 50 lakh bribe to a senior Income Tax official.</p><p> Justice N Anand Venkatesh ruled that surveillance violated the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. </p><p>“The right to privacy is now an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Telephone tapping constitutes a violation of the right to privacy unless justified by a procedure established by law,” the judge said in his order. </p> .Madras High Court dismisses MLA Jagan Moorthy's anticipatory bail plea.<p>He said Section 5(2) of the Act authorises interception of telephones on the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interests of public safety and both these contingencies are not secretive conditions or situations. </p><p> “In the instant case, the impugned order dated 12.8.2011 does not fall either within the rubric of “public emergency” or “in the interests of public safety” as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties,” the judge said. The facts disclose that it was a covert operation/secretive situation for detection of crime, which would not be apparent to any reasonable person,” he added. </p> .<p>The ruling came on a petition filed by former MD of Everonn Education Limited, P Kishore, challenging the August 12, 2011, order issued by the Union Home Ministry authorizing interception of his mobile phone under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. </p><p> The judge said the government’s justification that it put the individual’s phone on surveillance to detect corruption didn’t meet the legal threshold required to invade an individual’s privacy through phone tapping. </p><p> The judge added that the facts of the said case make it clear that it was a covert operation for detection of a crime which would not be apparent to any reasonable person. </p><p> “…the impugned order dated August 12, 2011, must necessarily be set aside as unconstitutional and one without jurisdiction,” the court said. </p>
<p>Chennai: Observing that phone tapping violates the right to privacy of an individual, unless it was justified by a procedure established by law, the Madras High Court on Wednesday quashed a phone tapping order issued by the Union Home Ministry in 2011 in connection with a CBI investigation involving an alleged Rs 50 lakh bribe to a senior Income Tax official.</p><p> Justice N Anand Venkatesh ruled that surveillance violated the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. </p><p>“The right to privacy is now an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Telephone tapping constitutes a violation of the right to privacy unless justified by a procedure established by law,” the judge said in his order. </p> .Madras High Court dismisses MLA Jagan Moorthy's anticipatory bail plea.<p>He said Section 5(2) of the Act authorises interception of telephones on the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interests of public safety and both these contingencies are not secretive conditions or situations. </p><p> “In the instant case, the impugned order dated 12.8.2011 does not fall either within the rubric of “public emergency” or “in the interests of public safety” as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties,” the judge said. The facts disclose that it was a covert operation/secretive situation for detection of crime, which would not be apparent to any reasonable person,” he added. </p> .<p>The ruling came on a petition filed by former MD of Everonn Education Limited, P Kishore, challenging the August 12, 2011, order issued by the Union Home Ministry authorizing interception of his mobile phone under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. </p><p> The judge said the government’s justification that it put the individual’s phone on surveillance to detect corruption didn’t meet the legal threshold required to invade an individual’s privacy through phone tapping. </p><p> The judge added that the facts of the said case make it clear that it was a covert operation for detection of a crime which would not be apparent to any reasonable person. </p><p> “…the impugned order dated August 12, 2011, must necessarily be set aside as unconstitutional and one without jurisdiction,” the court said. </p>