9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885. 2. Procedural safeguards against arbitrary telephone tapping. 3. Right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. 4. Right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 5. Compliance with International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Summary: 1. Constitutional Validity of Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885: The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which permits telephone tapping on the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety. The court upheld the validity of Section 5(2), noting that it lays down specific conditions under which the power can be exercised, such as sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, or preventing incitement to the commission of an offense. 2. Procedural Safeguards Against Arbitrary Telephone Tapping: The court emphasized the need for procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exercise of power under Section 5(2). It highlighted the lack of rules framed under Section 7(2)(b) of the Act, which provides for precautions to prevent improper interception or disclosure of messages. The court directed the Central Government to frame necessary rules and laid down interim procedural safeguards, including: - Orders for telephone tapping must be issued by the Home Secretary of India or the State Government. - Orders should specify the communications to be intercepted and be limited to a period of two months, extendable up to six months. - Authorities must maintain records of intercepted communications and their disclosure. - A Review Committee at the Central and State levels will investigate the validity of the orders and ensure compliance with Section 5(2). 3. Right to Privacy Under Article 21 of the Constitution: The court affirmed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, which includes the right to hold a telephone conversation in the privacy of one's home or office without interference. Telephone tapping infringes upon this right unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law. 4. Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression Under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution: The court noted that telephone tapping also infringes upon the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) unless it falls within the grounds of restrictions under Article 19(2). When a person is talking on the telephone, they are exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression. 5. Compliance with International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: The court referred to Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India is a signatory to, and emphasized that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy. The court interpreted Article 21 of the Constitution in conformity with international law, reinforcing the need for procedural safeguards to protect the right to privacy. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885, but mandated procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary telephone tapping. The court recognized the right to privacy and the right to freedom of speech and expression as fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, respectively. It directed the Central Government to frame rules under Section 7(2)(b) and laid down interim safeguards to protect these rights.
|
