https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189482 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. en-us Wed, 18 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jan 2017 18:15:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189482 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189482