Site icon Legal Vidhiya

PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND ANR. V/S UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., 1996

Admin
Spread the love
CITATIONAIR 1997 SC 568, (1997) 1 SCC 301
DATE OF JUDGMENT18th DECEMBER, 1996
COURTSUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PETITIONERPEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND ANR.
RESPONDENTUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
BENCHK. SINGH, S.S. AHMAD

INTRODUCTION

Indian citizens have a right to access information concerning political candidates, as underscored by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution – this was affirmed in the case of  “People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Anr. (PUCL) v. Union of India and Anr.” In 1951,  a law was passed excusing political candidates from sharing information that was not mandatory. PUCL challenged the legality of the former law by petitioning the Supreme Court, ultimately leading to a trailblazing verdict. The Court asserted PUCL’s claims: procuring crucial candidate details is central to voting power. Without information about candidates, individual voters will struggle to make informed decisions. They would not be as informed on the public discourse surrounding a candidate’s merits and drawbacks.  The right to privacy is a fundamental right for every human. Telephone tapping, as emphasised by the Court, tramples over this sacrosanct possession. Engaging in private conversations at home or in the workplace is proving to be vulnerable to exploitation in the era of rapid technological advancements. Safeguarding each citizen’s right to privacy is essential now more than ever, especially from the eyes of government authorities. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

Pointing out particular instances of recent telephone interceptions, the PUCL launched a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) with the Supreme Court to challenge these activities. The intrinsic validity of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, of 1885 was challenged by the petitioners in Court. This section’s particular purpose was to facilitate the Central or State government authorities to intercept communications when it was necessary, such as in the event of a public emergency or to ensure public safety. Protecting the sovereignty of India, maintaining diplomatic relations with other nations and preserving the public order were seen as valid reasons for interception within the section. However, the petitioners opined that the section impinged on the privacy of individuals. The petitioner argued that the legislation should be duly amended to incorporate some needed changes: procedural safeguards, the elimination of arbitrary acts, and the prevention of indiscriminate telephone interception. 

ISSUES RAISED

  1. Does Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 infringe upon the right to privacy and if it does, is it usually employed in this way? 
  2. Should Section 5(2) of the act be amended to introduce a certain protocol to curb unethical practices and overuse of phone surveillance? 

CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER

  1. Guarded by Articles 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India, the right to privacy is a fundamental right affirmed in the case of “PUCL and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.” 
  2. The petitioners argued further – to prevent any potential unconstitutional usage of Section 5(2) of the Act, it should be amended keeping the right to privacy in mind. 
  3. Simultaneously, they recognised the prominence of Section 5(2) for the objectives of the state while also underlining its necessity for procedural protection. 
  4. Prior judicial approval should be required to prevent any unjust or arbitrary actions, even if it would be granted ex parte. 

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

  1. In “PUCL and Anr v. Union of India and Anr.”, the respondents were the Union of India representatives. They concluded that invalidation of Section 5(2) would be detrimental to the furtherance of national security and the public interest. 
  2. Any accusations of power misuse were rejected with the argument that phone tapping was authorised only under specific circumstances by designated government officers who would endure oversight. Additionally, the respondents pleaded that the reasoning for phone tapping needed to be documented. Government recourse was a possible remedy in case of misuse.
  3. They also argued that informing the party subject to the phone tapping would compromise secrecy and the entire reason for the interception. 

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court’s verdict denoted the following: only the Home Secretary of the Government of India and the State Government have the right to issue orders for phone tapping, following Section 5(2) of the Act. Along with this, they commanded that specific communications be through a public telecommunication system. They may instruct the enclosed content to certain individuals similarly. The information being gathered should be for legitimate reasons and follow a legal procedure. Whenever the interception trespasses the boundaries of the law, the information obtained must be destroyed. The procedure should be documented in reports and records containing the minute details. The following reasons fulfil the criteria of being valid purposes of phone tapping, as cited by the Court:

  1. Defend the sovereignty and integrity of the state
  2. Ensuring national security
  3. To preserve the public order
  4. To halt any possible incitement of committing offences

ANALYSIS

The verdict in “PUCL and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.” was arrived at with the assistance of preceding judgements like “Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.”, “Gobind v. State of MP and Anr.”, and “R. Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu”. In these previous cases, it was noted that a right to privacy would fit under the stipulations of Article 21, which encompassed the right to life and liberty. Though not directly, privacy fell under the ambit of the same. Due to being a fundamental right, violating the right to privacy would require adherence to stringent legal provisions. Determining the nature of the violation would require a case-by-case evaluation, as emphasised by the Court. 

  1. The “right to privacy” can be construed as engaging in private telephone conversations at home or work, away from other’s intrusion, as per the Court’s acknowledgement. Unless conducted through an established legal procedure, it was emphasised that phone tapping would be a violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Moreover, under Article 19(1)(a), a telephone conversation could be considered a type of free speech and expression. Following this principle, the speech would have to be subject to reasonable restriction under Article 19(2). 
  2. The Second Press Commission’s report equated phone tapping to a significant infringement of privacy equivalent to technological eavesdropping. The Court dived into this interpretation, asserting that the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 did not address the guidelines of phone tapping in an explicit sense. Some reasons to allow phone tapping would be in the interest of national security, public order, crime investigations, and other goals in which obtaining information was deemed necessary.
  3. Conditions for issuing interception orders were clearly outlined in Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885, which is noticeable upon close examination by the Court. Some of the prerequisites that were delineated included the necessity of a “public emergency” or a need to secure “public safety”. The government officer authorising interception should have proved that the action was “necessary or expedient” for preservation of national security, sovereignty and integrity of India, or furthering diplomatic relations with other nations. These reasons should be recorded in writing by the designated officer.
  4. The court reiterated that the two statuory prerequisites and specified grounds must be followed, but opted to not deem Section 5(2) as unconstitutional. Under Section 7 of the Act, rule-forming authority existed with the Central Government, rendering the Petitioner’s argument about period judicial review before declaring interception orders moot. Instead, they scrutinised the government’s lack of ability to formulate organised guidelines despite the heavy amount of backlash Section 5(2) received. Nevertheless, they continued to officiate interim regulation to forestall arbitrary and protect the right to privacy from being curtailed. 

Some of the guidelines for interception crafted by the Court included:

  1. The Home Secretary of the Central Government or a State Government should be the one issuing authorisation through interception orders for telephone tapping. The issuance should be permitted only in emergencies. 
  2. Before issuing an interception order, there should be an assessment of how necessary it is to obtain certain information.
  3. An interception order should be effective for a limited time of two months. Unless it is renewed, the operational period should not exceed six months.
  4. Procedures should be followed to maintain detailed records of intercepted communications. 
  5. The interception should only gather the information required as per the Act. When it is no longer needed, the information should be destroyed. 
  6. To evaluate compliance with the law, review committees should be established at both the Central and State levels. 

CONCLUSION

Upon analysis of the judgement above, we conclude that phone tapping violates the fundamental right to privacy. In the era of rapid technological advancements, we find ourselves befuddled in a pool of intricate applications. Breaching someone’s privacy has become far more feasible with newly developing tools. Mobile phones have become an inventory for data collection in the age of information technology, and the Internet stores a myriad of information in its memory. Over time, applications have been developed for the wide use of the public, including social media like Instagram, Facebook, and others. However, safety and security on these platforms remain at risk, easily exposed to malicious hackers or the Government of India – we still do not know how or when our data could be manipulated. Under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, if someone wishes to keep their communication with another party private, it is their fundamental right to do so: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.” In conclusion, any contravention of this right would violate our Constitution’s principles.

REFERENCES

  1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31276692/ 
  2. https://lawbhoomi.com/pucl-vs-union-of-india/#:~:text=The%20Petitioner%20in%20PUCL%20vs,protect%20the%20right%20to%20privacy. 
  3. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/peoples-union-civil-liberties-v-india/ 
  4. https://leap.unep.org/en/countries/in/national-case-law/peoples-union-civil-liberties-anr-vs-uoi-and-ors 
  5. https://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/E90FA90F-0328-49F2-B03F-B9FBA473964F.pdf 
  6. https://lawfoyer.in/peoples-union-of-civil-liberties-v-union-of-india-another/ 

This Article is written by Eshal Zahur student of National Law University, Odisha; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version