IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme 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