Subsequent Declaration Of Juvenility Does Not Vitiate Conviction On Merits: Supreme Court Borrowers Cannot Ignore Bank Accounting Systems And Suspense Accounts To Claim Arbitrary Reductions In Loan Dues: Supreme Court Re-employed Judicial Officers Cannot Claim 6th Pay Commission Scales: Supreme Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Erroneously Exercising Review Jurisdiction On 'Mistaken Notion', Restores Employee's ACP Benefits Trademark Infringement: Defendant Can Cross-Examine Plaintiff On Use Of Brand Name Even If Written Statement Is Not On Record: Supreme Court 'Interest And Welfare Of Child Would Be Best Served': Supreme Court Invokes Parens Patriae In Contempt Plea; Revokes Own Custody Order Mere Absence From MCA Records Cannot Absolve Accused Under Section 138 NI Act If Prima Facie Role Is Shown: Punjab & Haryana High Court Incomplete Or Defective Real Estate Application Cannot Claim Deemed Registration Under Section 5(2) Of RERA Act: Orissa High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Cannot Justify Invoking 'Organized Crime' Offence Under Section 111 BNS Without Fulfilling Statutory Ingredients: Madhya Pradesh High Court 'Testator's Character & Prior Gifts Justify Unequal Distribution': Madras High Court Upholds Holographic Will Minority Status Cannot Arrest Limitation Period For Appeal If Minor Was Represented By Natural Guardian In Original Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Admission Of Property Boundaries In Family Partition Deeds Destroys Coparceners' Claim That Land Remains Joint Ancestral Property: Karnataka High Court Mesne Profits Must Reflect Open Market Letting Value Rather Than Static Contractual Rates: Delhi High Court Law Graduates Who Fail To Clear AIBE Within Two Years Cannot Practice In Any Court, Tribunal Or Revenue Authority: Allahabad High Court Bombay High Court Slams 'Growing Tendency' To Bypass GST Appeals, Says 'Natural Justice' Not A Blanket Excuse For Writ Petitions Proportionate Cost Only Can Be Awarded On Decreed Amount, Not On Total Plaint Valuation: Kerala 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