The judgment emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to legal provisions and procedural guarantees against abuse of interference with privacy under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 419-A.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. SESHA SAI, J.

These two Writ Appeals, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, call in question the order, dated 11.12.2006, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.2754 of 2006.

2. By way of the aforesaid order, dated 11.12.2006, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order bearing No.14/3/97-CBI, dated 17.11.2003, passed by the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi – respondent No.1 in the writ petition.

3. By way of the order, dated 17.11.2003, respondent No.1 in the writ petition directed interception of the telephone messages to and from mobile No.98-484-61953 belonging to the writ petitioner.

4. Heard Sri N. Harinath, learned Deputy Solicitor General for Union of India, appearing for the appellant in W.A. No.161 of 2007 and respondent No.2 in W.A. No.70 of 2007, and Sri B. Adi Narayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P. Kamalakar, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner, apart from perusing the material available on record.

5. Sri N. Harinath, learned Deputy Solicitor General, contends that the order passed by the learned single Judge is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short, “the Act”) and the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 (for short, “the Rules”); that the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act and Rule 419-A of the Rules enable and empower the Union of India to issue the order for interception of messages to and from the telephones; that the order of interception came to be issued by assigning valid reasons and by recording satisfaction, as such, the findings of the learned single Judge in the order under challenge in these appeals are neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law and that necessary ingredients of Section 5(2) of the Act do exist in the case on hand, as such, the order of interception cannot be faulted.

6. On the contrary, strongly and emphatically resisting the writ appeals, Sri B. Adi Narayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P. Kamalakar, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner, contends that there is absolutely no error nor there exists any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge, as such, the order passed in the writ petition warrants no interference of this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent; that as the contingency for invoking the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act and Rule 419-A of the Rules is conspicuously absent, the order of interception cannot stand for judicial scrutiny. In support of his submissions and contentions, learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the following judgments:-

1) A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court 348,

2) A.I.R. 1999 Supreme Court 2378,

3) A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 568 and

4) 2020 (1) A.I.R. Bom.R (Cri)1.

7. In the above background, now the issues, which this Court is called upon to consider and resolve in these appeals, are as under:-

“1) Whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge, setting aside the order of interception passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, is sustainable and tenable? and

2) Whether the order passed by the learned single Judge warrants any interference of this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent?”

8. For the purpose of answering the above issues and for proper adjudication, this Court deems it appropriate and apposite to refer to the order of interception, dated 17.11.2003, and the relevant provisions of law. The order of interception reads as follows:-