9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (5) TMI 859 - SC - Indian LawsPetitioner seeking to protect his fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Held that - Appeal dismissed. This court wants to make one thing clear i.e. perfunctory and slipshod affidavits which are not consistent either with Order XIX Rule 3 of the CPC or with Order XI Rules 5 and 13 of the Supreme Court Rules should not be entertained by this Court. These rules, reiterated by this Court time and again, are aimed at protecting the Court against frivolous litigation must not be diluted or ignored. However, in practice they are frequently flouted by the litigants and often ignored by the Registry of this Court. The instant petition is an illustration of the same. If the rules for affirming affidavit according to Supreme Court were followed, it would have been difficult for the petitioner to file this petition and so much of judicial time would have been saved. This case is not isolated instance. There are innumerable cases which have been filed with affidavits affirmed in a slipshod manner. This Court, therefore, directs that the Registry must henceforth strictly scrutinize all the affidavits, all petitions and applications and will reject or note as defective all those which are not consistent with the mandate of Order XIX Rule 3 of the CPC and Order XI Rules 5 and 13 of the Supreme Court Rules.
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Fundamental Right to Privacy 2. Legitimacy of Interception Orders 3. Allegations of Forgery 4. Admissibility and Validity of Affidavits 5. Conduct of the Service Provider 6. Suppression of Material Facts by the Petitioner Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of Fundamental Right to Privacy The petitioner sought protection of his fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He alleged that his phone conversations were intercepted and recorded by the Government of India and the Government of National Capital Region of Delhi, influenced by a political party. The court examined the allegations and found that the petitioner's claims were based on forged documents and unreliable sources. 2. Legitimacy of Interception Orders The petitioner claimed that orders dated 22nd October 2005 and 9th November 2005 authorized the interception of his phone conversations. However, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi denied issuing these orders, stating they were fabricated. The court found that no legitimate orders for interception were issued for the petitioner's phone number, and the documents presented were forged. 3. Allegations of Forgery The court noted that a criminal case had been initiated regarding the alleged forgery of the interception orders. An FIR was lodged, and the investigation revealed that the documents were indeed forged. The petitioner's reliance on these forged documents undermined his case. 4. Admissibility and Validity of Affidavits The court criticized the petitioner for filing an affidavit that did not comply with the requirements of Order XIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order XI Rules 5 and 13 of the Supreme Court Rules. The petitioner's affidavit was found to be perfunctory and defective, lacking proper verification and disclosure of the source of information. 5. Conduct of the Service Provider The service provider, respondent No. 8, acted on the forged interception orders without verifying their authenticity. The court held that the service provider failed in its duty to act responsibly and should have verified the orders, especially given the numerous errors in the documents. The court emphasized the need for statutory guidelines to prevent unauthorized interception of phone conversations. 6. Suppression of Material Facts by the Petitioner The petitioner suppressed material facts, including his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was recorded during the investigation of the forgery case. The court found that the petitioner's failure to disclose this information was a significant omission, rendering his petition frivolous and speculative. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, vacated the interim order, and did not address the merits of the petitioner's case. The petitioner was given the liberty to proceed against the service provider before the appropriate forum. The court reiterated the importance of filing proper affidavits and directed the Registry to scrutinize all affidavits and petitions strictly. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
|
