Legal Method: Case Study- People's Union for Civil Liberties [PUCL] vs. Union of India

 This article is written by Amisha Gupta pursuing B.A.LL.B from George School of Law (Calcutta University)

People's Union for Civil Liberties [PUCL] vs. Union of India

[AIR 1997 SC 568:(1997)1 SCC 301]

Kuldip Singh and S. Saghir Ahmad,J

Brief fact of the case:

The petitioner, People's Union for Civil Liberties, a voluntary organisation filed a writ petition under article 32 of the contribution by the office of public interest litigation highlighting the incidents of telephone tapping in recent years. PUCL approached the Court on the basis of report on tapping of politicians' telephone by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The petitioner head challenged the validity of Section 5(2) of the Indian telegraph act 1885 which authorised the state to intercept messages only on the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety, if it is satisfied that it is necessary for experience and to do so in five given situations, in the interests of:

1. The sovereignty and integrity of India.
2. The security of the State.
3. Friendly relation with foreign States.
4. Public order.
5. Preventing incitement to the commission of an offence.

This case is also known as "phone tapping case".

Issue of the case: 

It asked for the provisions of Section 5(2) to be interpreted in the light of fundamental rights and read down to include procedural save cards that would discount arbitrariness and prevent indiscriminate phone tapping by law enforcement for investigating agencies. 

Judgement:

The Apex Court held that telephone tapping is a serious invention of an individual's right to privacy which is a part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21, violates the citizen's freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(a) of the Constitution and it should not be resorted to by the state unless there is public emergency or interest of public safety so demand. 

Elaborating the scope of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1882 the Court clarified that this section does not confer unguided and unrestrained power on investigating agencies to invade a person's privacy. telephone tapping is only permitted in the following to circumstances: (i) On the occurrence of a Public Emergency.          (ii) In the interest of Public Safety.

Guidelines:

The supreme court laid down the following procedural safeguards for the exercise of power under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1882:

1. Tapping of telephones is prohibited without an authorising order from the Government of India or the Home Secretary of the concerned state. 
2. The copy of the orders shall be sent to review committee within one week of the passing of order.
3. The order unless it is renewed shall cease to have authority at the end of 2 months from the date of issue though the order may be renewed it cannot remain in operation beyond 6 months.
4. Telephone tapping or interception of communication must be limited to the specified addresses in the order.
5. The authority issuing the order shall maintain the records of the intercepted communications.
6. The review committee shall on its own, within two months, investigate whether there is or has been a relevant order under Section 5(2) of the Act.
7. If on investigation, the Review Committee concludes that there has been a contravention of the provision of Section 5(2) of the Act, it shall set aside the order.
8. If on investigation, the Review Committee to the conclusion that there has been no contravention of the provision of Section 5(2) of the Act, it shall record the finding to that effect. 
9. All copies of the intercepted material must be destroyed as soon as their retention is not necessary under the terms of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act.

The court noted that the growth of highly sophisticated communication technology the right to hold telephone conversation in the privacy of one's home or office without interference is increasingly susceptible to abuse.

_______________________________________________

References: 

• Babu Sarkar's - Legal Method & Legal Research Methodology, Marketed by : N.M. Roychowdhury Co., Published by Manash Dutta: Moon Law Agency, First edition June, 2014 , Reprint 2018.
• Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari - Legal Method, Published by Central Law Home, 3rd reprint 2017.
•  Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1882.