Industrial Units In MIDC Areas Exempt From Municipal Property Tax Only As Long As MIDC Provides Amenities: Supreme Court MIDC Service Charges Are Fees For Services, Not Taxes; Industrial Units Must Pay Municipal Property Tax: Supreme Court Public Servants Have No Vested Right To Be Considered For Promotion Under Repealed Rules: Supreme Court IBC | Successful Resolution Applicant Cannot Renege From Approved Plan By Citing Pending Litigations Or Letter Of Intent Conditions: Supreme Court Payment Of 93% Sale Consideration Demonstrates Readiness & Willingness For Specific Performance: Supreme Court Delay In Issuing Legal Notice No Ground To Deny Specific Performance If Suit Filed Within Limitation: Supreme Court Brandishing Pistol At Children During Abduction Inherently Constitutes Threat To Cause Death Or Hurt: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 364A IPC Lack Of CDR Records For 2003-Era Kidnapping Not Fatal To Prosecution If Oral Evidence Of Ransom Is Cogent: Supreme Court Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage On Ground Of Irretrievable Breakdown Under Article 142 Despite Wife's Opposition To Decree Failure To Conduct TIP For Unknown Accused Diminishes Evidentiary Value Of Dock Identification: Supreme Court Acquits Rape-Murder Convicts On Death Row Padded Evidence Created By Investigating Agency To Bolster Prosecution Case Fatal To Conviction In Circumstantial Evidence Cases: Supreme Court CCI Has No Inherent Power To Keep Combination Approval In Abeyance Or Order Re-Notification Without Express Statutory Authority: Supreme Court CCI Cannot Reopen Concluded Merger Approvals After One Year; Characterization Dispute In Filing Is Not 'Non-Disclosure': Supreme Court Sets Aside Orders Against Amazon Stamping Defects Are Curable, Arbitrators Empowered To Decide Such Objections Under Section 16 A&C Act: Supreme Court Rejection Of Section 16 Objection By Arbitrator Cannot Be Challenged Under Article 226/227; Aggrieved Party Must Wait For Final Award: Supreme Court Police Parading Accused Or Orchestrating Social Media Condemnation Is Extra-Legal Punishment, Violates Article 21: Rajasthan High Court Inclusion Of Hash Value In Electronic Record Certificates Is Essential For Data Integrity; Not Arbitrary: Supreme Court Judiciary Not Above Criticism; Portraying Imaginary Corrupt Court In Films Doesn't Scandalize Real Courts: Madras High Court

Rajasthan High Court Rules in Favor of Privacy Rights, Quashes Unlawful Surveillance Orders

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, has ruled in favor of protecting privacy rights and quashed interception orders under the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. The court found that the orders, which permitted surveillance of mobile phones belonging to the petitioner and others, violated fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.

The Hon'ble Justice Birendra Kumar, delivering the judgment on 4th July 2023, emphasized the significance of safeguarding citizens' privacy and adherence to procedural fairness. The court observed, "The challenge is on the ground that the right to privacy has been infringed by putting the mobile phones of the petitioner and others on surveillance/spying by the State machinery."

The interception orders were issued by the Secretary (Home) of the Rajasthan government without adequate reasoning and procedural safeguards. The court highlighted that the impugned orders failed to disclose the material justifying public safety and lacked written reasons, as required by the law. Furthermore, the court found that the Secretary (Home) was not the competent authority to pass such orders, and they were not sent to the Review Committee for approval.

High court's, "If substantial compliance has already been done, it would be taken as compliance of the mandate of law. However, in the case on hand, no circumstance has been disclosed ventilating the objective satisfaction that the impugned orders were necessary for public safety."

The court reiterated the importance of upholding the right to privacy, as established in previous landmark cases like People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Vs. Union of India & Anr and K.S. Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India. It affirmed that illegal tapping of phone conversations violates the right to privacy and requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards.

As a consequence of the judgment, all three interception orders have been quashed, and the authorities have been directed to destroy the intercepted messages and their copies. The intercepted messages will not be admissible as evidence in the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

The petitioner's legal team, represented by Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora, Mr. Mohit Khandelwal, Mr. T.C. Sharma, and Mr. Vishivas Saini, hailed the court's decision as a victory for individual privacy rights. They stated, "The court's ruling reinforces the importance of upholding privacy and ensuring that surveillance measures are strictly regulated and compliant with the law."

On the other hand, the respondent's counsel, Mr. Atul Sharma, Dy.G.A., expressed that they would thoroughly examine the judgment and consider any further legal steps.

Date of Decision: 04/07/2023

Shashikant Joshi  vs State Of Rajasthan

Latest Legal News