Chhattisgarh High Court Sets Aside Phone Interception Orders Against Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Maharaj In CBI Corruption Case, Declines To Quash Charge-Sheet

"The confirmation contemplated under Rule 3(3)(b) is confirmatory in character; it cannot create jurisdiction retrospectively nor enlarge the scope of an authorisation already granted." Chhattisgarh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that statutory confirmation of a telephone interception cannot operate retrospectively to validate surveillance for a period prior to the original authorization, while declining to quash the overarching criminal proceedings against Shri Ravi Shankar Ji Maharaj.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed that strict compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards is indispensable when the State invokes extraordinary executive powers that infringe upon the fundamental right to privacy.

The Central Bureau of Investigation registered an FIR on June 30, 2025, alleging a large-scale conspiracy involving officials, intermediaries, and private medical colleges for leaking inspection details and securing favorable reports through bribes across 35 institutions. The petitioner, serving as Chairman of Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, was named as an accused and challenged both the prosecution and the underlying interception orders. The petitioner contended that the surveillance breached statutory mandates under the Telecommunications Act, 2023.

The primary question before the court was whether a statutory confirmation or review order could retrospectively validate telephone interception for a period anterior to the initial authorization. The court was also called upon to determine whether the invalidity of interception proceedings warrants the automatic quashing of an entire criminal charge-sheet supported by independent evidence.

Interception Violates Privacy Guarantees The court emphasized that telephone interception constitutes a serious invasion of privacy protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The bench noted that surveillance powers are constitutionally sustainable only when exercised in strict conformity with law and accompanied by effective procedural safeguards against executive arbitrariness.

"The right to privacy has now been unequivocally recognised as an intrinsic part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution," the bench observed, underscoring that statutory conditions authorizing such intrusion must receive strict construction.

Retrospective Validation Impermissible The bench held that confirmation orders cannot create jurisdiction retrospectively. Examining the record, the court noted that while the initial interception authorization was issued on June 28, 2025, the Ministry of Home Affairs' confirmation order was stated to pertain to a duration commencing from June 1, 2025.

"The confirmation contemplated under Rule 3(3)(b) is confirmatory in character; it cannot create jurisdiction retrospectively nor enlarge the scope of an authorisation already granted," the court ruled, adding that the existence of a lawful initial authorization is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite.

Review Committee Cannot Cure Illegality Supervisory review cannot cure foundational jurisdictional defects. The court observed that the Review Committee functions in a supervisory capacity to examine conformity with statutory rules, but its endorsement cannot breathe legality into an invalid exercise of surveillance power ab initio.

"If the confirmation itself travels beyond the permissible statutory framework, the Review Committee's endorsement cannot confer legality upon an otherwise invalid exercise of power," the bench stated.

Trial To Proceed On Independent Evidence The invalidity of interception does not collapse the entire prosecution. The court accepted the CBI's submission that the investigation was not founded exclusively upon intercepted conversations, noting that independent documentary, electronic, and financial evidence had been gathered.

"The effect of setting aside the interception orders is confined to the legality of the interception process and the use of material derived therefrom, leaving it open to the competent criminal Court to proceed in accordance with law on the basis of other legally admissible evidence," the court held.

The High Court set aside the interception authorization dated June 28, 2025, the Ministry of Home Affairs' confirmation order dated July 4, 2025, and the Review Committee proceedings dated September 15, 2025, directing that copies of the intercepted messages be destroyed. However, the prayer to quash the FIR, charge-sheet, and summoning order was declined. The Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Raipur, was directed to proceed with the trial based strictly on other legally admissible material on record.

Date of Decision: 03 August 2026