Admissibility of inquiry statements and electronic printouts in customs adjudication requires witness examination and cross-examination before relianc...
Money laundering property attachment and third-party encumbrance rights clarified; prior bona fide interests enforceable before confiscation, appeals ...
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.