Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
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.