Privacy and telephone tapping: interception upheld only with strict procedural safeguards against arbitrariness.

The right to privacy was treated as part of Article 21, and telephone conversations in the home or office were held protected by that right. Telephone tapping was also recognised as an intrusion that may affect freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) when speech is intercepted. Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act was construed to permit interception only in a public emergency or in the interest of public safety and only on specified grounds. To avoid arbitrariness, the Court required mandatory procedural safeguards on authorisation, duration, review, record-keeping, destruction of copies, and independent oversight, so interception would be constitutionally valid only under a just, fair and reasonable procedure.

---

---

Issues: Whether the right to privacy protects telephone conversations from interception, whether Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 can be sustained only with procedural safeguards, and what safeguards are necessary to prevent arbitrary telephone tapping.

Analysis: The right to privacy was treated as part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and telephone conversations in the privacy of home or office were held to fall within that protection. Telephone tapping was recognised as an intrusion affecting both privacy and, where speech is intercepted, freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 was construed as permitting interception only on the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interest of public safety and only for the specified grounds, but the absence of prescribed procedure and the non-framing of rules under Section 7(2)(b) created a risk of arbitrariness. To preserve the constitutionality of the provision, the Court laid down mandatory procedural safeguards governing authorisation, duration, review, record-keeping, destruction of copies, and oversight by review committees.

Conclusion: Telephone tapping was held to be constitutionally permissible only if carried out under a just, fair and reasonable procedure with the safeguards directed by the Court; the impugned provision was not struck down but was effectively read down and regulated.

Ratio Decidendi: Interception of telephone communications is a serious invasion of privacy and is valid only when authorised under law that itself provides just, fair and reasonable procedural safeguards against arbitrariness.

---