Vehicle expense apportionment and agricultural income substantiation: ITAT allowed partial business deduction and deleted the reclassification additio...
Right to privacy is an intrinsic part of Article 21, and telephone interception infringes that right unless authorised by law and confined strictly to statutory limits. The HC held that Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act permits tapping only on the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interests of public safety, conditions that were absent in a covert bribery-detection operation; the interception order was therefore without jurisdiction and unconstitutional. It further held that Rule 419-A's mandatory review safeguard was breached because the intercepted material was not placed before the Review Committee, so the intercepted conversations could not be used for any purpose. Independent material collected later remained unaffected.
Right to privacy is an intrinsic part of Article 21, and telephone interception infringes that right unless authorised by law and confined strictly to statutory limits. The HC held that Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act permits tapping only on the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interests of public safety, conditions that were absent in a covert bribery-detection operation; the interception order was therefore without jurisdiction and unconstitutional. It further held that Rule 419-A's mandatory review safeguard was breached because the intercepted material was not placed before the Review Committee, so the intercepted conversations could not be used for any purpose. Independent material collected later remained unaffected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
