The Madras High Court has ruled that phone-tapping amounts to a violation of the fundamental right to privacy unless justified by a procedure established under law.

The ruling came in a petition filed by P. Kishore, former managing director of Everonn Education Limited, challenging a 2011 interception order issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs authorising the CBI to tap his mobile phone.

Justice N Anand Venkatesh, delivering the judgment, emphasised that the right to privacy is an essential component of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. He observed that while Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 allows for phone-tapping in cases of “public emergency” or “public safety,” it cannot be invoked for routine criminal investigations.

“The words of Section 5(2) cannot be stretched to include detection of ordinary crimes,” the Court observed. “Such an interpretation would undermine the constitutional protection afforded to privacy.”

The interception in question was linked to a CBI investigation into a bribery allegation involving ₹50 lakh, allegedly demanded by IRS officer Andasu Ravinder from Kishore. Although the bribe money was later recovered from a carton in possession of Ravinder and his associate Uttam Bohra, Kishore was not present during the recovery, nor was any cash recovered from him.

Kishore contended that the interception order lacked the legal prerequisites of a public emergency or a threat to public safety. He also argued that the procedural safeguards mandated by Rule 419-A of the Telegraph Rules and the Supreme Court’s decision in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (PUCL case) were not followed.

The Centre and CBI defended the interception, claiming it was necessary to investigate corruption, which they said affected public safety. The Court, however, rejected this broad justification.

“Where the law has intended to grant powers for interception to detect crime, it has done so expressly, such as under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999,” the judge noted. “The use of Section 5(2) for such purposes is clearly misconceived.”

The Court also found that the interception order lacked factual basis and failed to demonstrate application of mind. Further, the tapped material had not been placed before the Review Committee as required under the PUCL judgment.

“The omission to place the intercepted content before the Review Committee shows a brazen violation of the law,” the Court remarked.

Consequently, the High Court quashed the August 2011 interception order and declared all telephonic communications obtained through it as invalid. However, it clarified that any evidence obtained independently of the tapped calls during the investigation may still be considered by the trial court on its own merits.

Advocates Sharath Chandran and Rajagopal Vasudevan represented the petitioner. Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, with Advocate TV Krishnamachari, appeared for the Union, while Advocate K Srinivasan represented the CBI.