Madras High Court: Phone-Tapping Violates Privacy Unless Strictly Legal

In an important judgment, the Madras High Court has ruled that tapping someone’s phone is a clear violation of their fundamental right to privacy, unless it strictly follows the procedure set out by law.

What Was the Case About?

This case was about P Kishore, who was the Managing Director of Everonn Education Limited in 2011. Back then, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs gave permission to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to tap Kishore’s mobile phone.

The CBI had registered a case (FIR) in August 2011. They claimed that an IRS officer, Andasu Ravinder, demanded a ₹50 lakh bribe from Kishore to help his company dodge taxes. The bribe was allegedly going to be routed through Ravinder’s friend, Uttam Bohra.

The CBI later caught Ravinder and Bohra with a carton containing the ₹50 lakh near Ravinder’s house. Kishore himself wasn’t there, and no money was found with him directly.

Why Did Kishore Challenge the Phone-Tapping?

Kishore argued that the phone-tapping broke his right to privacy, which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.

He said that Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 allows phone-tapping only during a public emergency or in the interest of public safety — but here, there was no emergency or threat to public safety.

He also said that the government didn’t follow the rules properly, like the Telegraph Rules and the Supreme Court’s guidelines in the famous PUCL case (People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India).

What Did the CBI and Centre Say?

The CBI and the Centre argued that corruption is a serious crime that threatens public safety. So, they claimed the phone-tapping was necessary.

What Did the High Court Decide?

Justice N Anand Venkatesh disagreed with the government. The Court made it very clear that the right to privacy is part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21.

The Judge said:

“Phone tapping violates privacy unless justified by a proper legal procedure. Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act cannot be stretched to cover normal crimes like bribery.”

The Court also pointed out:

• The government order just copied the words of the law but didn’t explain why phone-tapping was needed in this specific case.

• The tapped calls were not even sent to a Review Committee, which is mandatory under the PUCL judgment.

• There was no real application of mind by the authorities who approved the tapping.

The Judge explained that special laws do allow phone-tapping for organized crime (like the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act), but for ordinary crimes, the general Telegraph Act cannot be misused.

What Happened in the End?

The High Court quashed the phone-tapping order from August 2011. It declared that all the calls tapped under that order were invalid and cannot be used.

However, the Court also said this decision doesn’t affect any other evidence the CBI may have collected independently of the phone taps. The trial court must decide on that evidence based on its own merit.

Who Appeared in Court?

• For Kishore: Advocates Sharath Chandran and Rajagopal Vasudevan.

• For the Union Government: Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan and Advocate TV Krishnamachari.

  
  

Conclusion:

This judgment strongly reminds all investigating agencies that privacy is a fundamental right, and phone-tapping is a serious intrusion. It can only be done if there’s a public emergency or threat to public safety — not for routine crime detection.

The law must be followed strictly, and any shortcut violates the Constitution.