The Madras High Court recently stated that phone-tapping violates a person’s fundamental right to privacy unless it is carried out according to proper legal procedures. Justice N Anand Venkatesh explained that as per Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, phone-tapping is allowed only during a public emergency or to ensure public safety. It cannot be used for routine criminal investigations.

The Court emphasized that the right to privacy is an important part of the right to life and personal liberty, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Secretly listening to someone’s phone calls without a valid legal reason infringes on this right. It clarified that Section 5(2) can only be applied when there is a serious emergency or a real threat to public safety, not for investigating normal crimes.

This observation was made while hearing a case related to a 2011 order issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, which had allowed the CBI to tap the phone of P Kishore, who was then the Managing Director of Everonn Education Limited. The order was connected to a CBI probe after an FIR was filed in August 2011. The FIR accused an IRS officer named Andasu Ravinder, who was working as an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, of demanding a ₹50 lakh bribe from Kishore to help his company avoid taxes. The bribe was reportedly to be passed through Ravinder’s friend, Uttam Bohra.

Following this, the CBI caught Ravinder and Bohra near Ravinder’s residence with ₹50 lakh in cash, for which they had no explanation. Kishore later challenged the phone-tapping order in court, arguing that it violated his right to privacy. The government and CBI, however, defended it by saying it was necessary to investigate corruption.

The Court rejected this argument, stating that using Section 5(2) for regular criminal cases would undermine the constitutional right to privacy. It further noted that there are special laws, like the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, which specifically allow phone-tapping for tackling organized crime. But Section 5(2) cannot be stretched to cover ordinary crimes.