Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

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