Explore how Indian law governs phone tapping, and what the Madras and Delhi High Courts recently ruled on government surveillance and citizens’ right to privacy.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The issue of phone tapping in India has come under legal and public scrutiny following two recent High Court decisions that offered contrasting views on its permissibility.
With surveillance powers governed by laws like the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and subject to constitutional safeguards under Article 19 and the right to privacy, the debate centers on whether the government can legally intercept communications as a preventive measure before any crime has occurred.
ALSO READ: Kerala High Court Sends Fresh Notice to PV Anvar Over Explosive Phone Tapping Allegations
The legality of phone tapping in India came under renewed scrutiny after two recent High Court rulings—by the Madras and Delhi High Courts, offered differing views on whether the government can intercept communications to gather evidence before a crime is committed.
Phone tapping is governed by three key laws, the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (for postal communications), the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for phone calls), and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for digital communications like emails and WhatsApp messages).
Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act permits the central and state governments to authorize phone tapping in cases of “public emergency” or “public safety”. However, these powers are not unlimited.
Any surveillance must fall within the “reasonable restrictions” listed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, such as the sovereignty and integrity of India, state security, public order, and prevention of incitement to offences.
Since phone tapping directly impacts fundamental rights like the right to privacy and freedom of speech, it must meet strict constitutional and legal thresholds, and cannot be done arbitrarily or preemptively without justifiable cause.
The High Court Rulings
In both the Madras and Delhi High Court cases, the government justified phone tapping on the ground of “preventing incitement to the commission of an offence”, a legally valid reason under surveillance laws.
However, the courts took different views on whether economic offences could qualify as a threat to “public emergency” or “public safety.” The Delhi High Court upheld the interception order, while the Madras High Court struck it down.
Delhi High Court
In the case of Aakash Deep Chouhan v. CBI & Anr., the Delhi High Court delivered a judgment on 26 June 2025 concerning allegations of corruption in a government redevelopment project.
The background of the case, as recorded by the Delhi High Court, revolves around an alleged criminal conspiracy involving senior officials of NBCC (India) Ltd., a public sector undertaking, and private contractors.
The CBI registered an FIR in December 2017 based on credible information that M/s Capacite Structures Ltd., through its Managing Director Sanjay Kulkarni, was attempting to secure a sub-contract from M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd., which had been awarded a ₹2149.93 crore project by NBCC.
Kulkarni allegedly sought the help of a private person named Rishabh, who had connections with public servants, including Pradeep Kumar Mishra, an Assistant Director in the Intelligence Bureau. Pradeep is said to have demanded a Royal Enfield motorcycle as illegal gratification for influencing NBCC officials to favour Capacite Structures Ltd.
The petitioner, Aakash Deep Chouhan, an employee of Kulkarni, was tasked with purchasing and delivering the motorcycle to Pradeep.
The CBI recovered the motorcycle, obtained call recordings indicating the conspiracy, and linked the payment for the vehicle to Chouhan’s bank account.
Based on this evidence, the trial court framed charges under Section 120B IPC and Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Chouhan challenged this, claiming the interceptions were unlawful and that he acted merely as an employee without knowledge of the bribe.
However, the High Court found sufficient material to support grave suspicion against him and upheld the trial court’s decision to frame charges. Justice Amit Mahajan stated in his order that given the contract was for Rs 2,149.93 crore,
“The economic scale of the offence, in the opinion of this Court, satisfies the threshold of public safety”.
The High Court said
“The threat posed by corruption cannot be understated. Corruption has a pervasive impact on a nation’s economy and the same can impact anything from infrastructural development to resource allocation. Corruption by a public servant has far-reaching consequences as it serves to not only erode public trust and cast aspersions on the integrity of public institutions, but also renders the public at large susceptible and vulnerable by threatening the economic safety of the country,”.
Case Title: Aakash Deep Chouhan v. CBI & Anr.
CRL.M.C. 204/2020 & CRL.M.A. 890/2020
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Madras High Court
In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Madras High Court, Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Anand Venkates quashed a 2011 order of the Ministry of Home Affairs that had authorized the CBI to intercept the mobile phone calls of the Managing Director of Everonn Education Ltd.
The interception was carried out under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 419-A of the Telegraph Rules, 1951, purportedly in the interest of public safety and to prevent incitement to an offence.
The Court held that telephone tapping infringes the right to privacy, a fundamental right under Article 21, unless it strictly follows the “procedure established by law.”
Referring to the landmark judgment in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997), the Court clarified that interception can be justified only during a “public emergency” or when it’s “in the interest of public safety”, both of which must be evident and not secretive.
In this case, the surveillance was part of a covert investigation into a ₹50 lakh bribery allegation, and not related to any visible public emergency or safety issue. The Court ruled that using Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act for routine crime detection—without meeting the required thresholds—was unconstitutional.
Moreover, the intercepted material was never submitted to the Review Committee, violating Rule 419-A(17), which mandates such review to ensure legal compliance.
As a result, the interception order was quashed, declared to be ultra vires, and all conversations recorded under it were deemed inadmissible and barred from use in any proceedings. However, the Court clarified that other independent evidence collected by CBI during the investigation could still be relied upon by the trial court.
Case Title: P.Kishore v Secretary to Government
Writ Petition No.143 of 2018
READ ORDER HERE
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
