Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition

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

Similar News