JAIPUR: In a far-reaching order on Tuesday, the Rajasthan High Court quashed orders issued by the home department to put on surveillance telephone numbers of RAS officer and revenue board member Sunil Sharma, lawyer Shashikant Joshi, and others for the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) to investigate a case.
The orders for phone interception were issued on October 28 and December 28, 2020; and March 17, 2021.
A single bench of Justice Birendra Kumar said the orders issued by the home department suffered from arbitrariness and constituted a violation of fundamental rights. The court directed the ACB to destroy the intercepted messages/recordings and said they could not be used in the pending criminal proceedings against the accused, said Mohit Khandelwal, counsel for the petitioner.
The court said the home department’s orders were never sent to the review committee which was to assess the validity of the order within a stipulated time. It further said the orders did not contain any reason for phone surveillance though the statutory provision requires the reason to be given in writing to conclude that it was being done for “public safety”. The court pointed out that sub-rule (3) of Rule 419A required the authority passing any such order under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act to consider the possibility of getting the information by other means and the direction under sub-rule (1) be issued only when it is not possible to get the required information by any other reasonable means.
The orders for phone interception were issued on October 28 and December 28, 2020; and March 17, 2021.
A single bench of Justice Birendra Kumar said the orders issued by the home department suffered from arbitrariness and constituted a violation of fundamental rights. The court directed the ACB to destroy the intercepted messages/recordings and said they could not be used in the pending criminal proceedings against the accused, said Mohit Khandelwal, counsel for the petitioner.
The court said the home department’s orders were never sent to the review committee which was to assess the validity of the order within a stipulated time. It further said the orders did not contain any reason for phone surveillance though the statutory provision requires the reason to be given in writing to conclude that it was being done for “public safety”. The court pointed out that sub-rule (3) of Rule 419A required the authority passing any such order under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act to consider the possibility of getting the information by other means and the direction under sub-rule (1) be issued only when it is not possible to get the required information by any other reasonable means.
