The interception of messages under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act must demonstrate public safety or emergency; mere statutory recitation is insufficient.

JUDGMENT:

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

A. THE CHALLENGE

2. Petition raises challenge to Orders dated 9 March 2018 and 17 March 2018 passed by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India under provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of Indian TELEGRAPHS ACT , 1998 directing interception of telephonic messages to and from Petitioner’s mobile phones numbers and disclosure thereof to Director, CBI.

B. FACTS

3. Narration of few basic facts, shorn of unnecessary details, as a prologue to the judgment would be necessary. Petitioner came to be appointed as Labour Enforcement Officer, (Central) in the year 1987. In 2017, he was posted as Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) at Dehradun, Uttarakhand. By order dated 9 October 2017, he was transferred to Mumbai where he joined on 11 October 2017 and started functioning as Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). While working in Mumbai, the Petitioner had procured two mobile phone numbers, viz. 8218574304 and 9968004524. On 9 March 2018, first Respondent passed order authorising interception of any message from and to the mobile phone bearing No. 8218574304 relating to clandestine contact/movement/activity etc. The order was passed in exercise of powers by the Central Government under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (Telegraph Act). On 17 March 2018, similar order was passed in respect of Petitioner’s other mobile number i.e. 9968004524. It appears that in pursuance of the orders dated 9 March 2018 and 17 March 2018, certain messages of Petitioner were intercepted by the first Respondent and provided to CBI, based on which FIR bearing No. RC/BA1/2018/A0011 was registered against Petitioner and other officials working under him under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 12 0-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860. It is alleged in the FIR that a reliable source information was received that Petitioner was indulging in corrupt and illegal activities and criminal conspiracy with other persons and staff working in the office of Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and seeking illegal gratification for official acts/functions like processing of renewal/issuance of labour licenses, certificate of registration, building and other works, construction work certificates and deciding on inspection matters etc. The FIR alleges that the source information revealed that M/s. Som Projects Pvt. Ltd had undertaken project in Colaba, Mumbai and two personnel of the said Company were in regular touch of the Petitioner relating to the work of renewal/issuance of licenses and other pending works in the office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai. The FIR alleges that Petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1,20,000/- in three packets of Rs.70,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- for himself and two other public servants. The FIR was registered after learning that the Company person was likely to deliver illegal gratification to the Petitioner and other two public servants. CBI alleges that a trap was conducted on 20 April 2018 in which the bribe amount was recovered from Petitioner and the brib