https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788484 Telephone tapping was treated as an invasion of privacy under Article 21 unless supported by a valid procedure established by law. Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act was read to permit interception only where public emergency or public safety conditions exist, and the order here failed because it merely recited statutory language without factual basis, making it without jurisdiction. Rule 419-A safeguards, including Review Committee scrutiny, were mandatory and were not complied with because the intercepted material was never placed before the Committee. Material collected under the unlawful interception order was therefore excluded from use. en-us Wed, 02 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 May 2026 16:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788484 Telephone tapping was treated as an invasion of privacy under Article 21 unless supported by a valid procedure established by law. Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act was read to permit interception only where public emergency or public safety conditions exist, and the order here failed because it merely recited statutory language without factual basis, making it without jurisdiction. Rule 419-A safeguards, including Review Committee scrutiny, were mandatory and were not complied with because the intercepted material was never placed before the Committee. Material collected under the unlawful interception order was therefore excluded from use. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 02 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788484