Legality of Phone Tapping | 08 Jul 2025

Source: IE 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Madras High Court and the Delhi High Court gave contrasting rulings on whether the government can legally tap phones to prevent crimes, especially in cases involving economic offences (bribery).  

What are Key Legal Facts Related to Phone Tapping? 

• About: It is the monitoring or recording of telephone conversations by a third party, typically without the knowledge or consent of the people involved.  
  • It is often done by government agencies for security, intelligence, or law enforcement purposes. 
• Law Governing Phone Tapping: 
  • Indian Telegraph Act, 1885: Section 5(2) of the Act allows the central or state governments to intercept phone calls during public emergency or public safety concerns. 
  • Information Technology Act, 2000: It governs surveillance of digital communications (emails, WhatsApp, etc.). 
  • Indian Post Office Act, 1898: Applies to postal communications. 
• Safeguards Against Phone Tapping: Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 provides procedures for phone tapping, including a Review Committee to check misuse. 
  • Surveillance must follow constitutional safeguards, particularly Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to life and privacy, as upheld in the Puttaswamy judgment, 2017). 
• Delhi High Court Ruling: In the Aakash Deep Chouhan v. CBI Case, 2020, the court affirmed that surveillance to prevent incitement to an offence is legally permissible and ruled that phone tapping was justified under the law. 
  • It held that corruption in public projects can endanger economic security, qualifying as a matter of public safety. 
• Madras High Court Ruling: In the P. Kishore v. Secretary to Government Case, 2018, the court quashed the 2011 interception order issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in connection with a suspected economic offence, stating there was no public emergency or clear threat to public safety. 
  • It also stated that the phone tapping was unlawful as it failed to meet the procedural standards laid down by the Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India Case, 1997. 
• Supreme Court Ruling 1997: As per the Supreme Court ruling in People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India Case 1997: 
  • Only the Home Secretary of the Centre or State can authorise phone tapping. Delegation of this power below the rank of Joint Secretary is not allowed. 
  • Every phone-tap order must be reviewed within two months by a review committee comprising: 
    • At the Centre: Cabinet Secretary, Law Secretary, Telecom Secretary. 
    • At the State: Chief Secretary, Law Secretary, and one other member (excluding the Home Secretary). 
• Non Admissibility of Evidence: If a phone-tap order is unlawful, the information gathered is inadmissible in court, protecting privacy and free speech rights.