Inter alia, this article majorly talks about the interception of telephonic conversations with reference to the Right to Privacy guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
Introduction:
In today's time, technology has become an integral part of our lives. The ease of doing things has made us dependant on technology, so much so that it has become an irreplaceable part of our lives.
The world is transforming at a blistering speed and new technological advancements are being introduced on a daily basis.
It has become evident with the development in sophisticated technological advancements and social media, our lives have become less private, and hence it has become quite imperative than ever to secure the privacy of individuals.
Brief History:
The concept of 'phone tapping' also includes wiretapping or interception of phone calls and was first started in the United States of America in the 1890s after the advent of telephone recorders back then.
It gradually became a national crisis for the people of the USA and the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 'Katz vs USA' stated that phone tapping or wiretapping requires a warrant and in the year 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act came into force.
This act was basically enacted for the purpose of issuing warrants for phone tapping or wiretapping in cases pertaining to the national security of the state.
Phone Tapping Law in India:
"No person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to the due procedure established by law" Article 21 of the Constitution of India avers and provides for the protection of life and personal liberty.
In a plethora of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has stated that the Right to Privacy falls under the purview of Article 21 as personal liberty also comprises of the Right to Privacy.
And as per Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, the law laid down by the Supreme Court is the law of land, and is binding upon all the courts falling within the Indian territory.
In the case of "Justice K.S. Puttaswamy & Another vs The Union Of India, a landmark judgment on Right to Privacy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court briefly dealt and discussed on this aspect.
It is pertinent to mention that the Right to Privacy was previously considered as a common law right before this case where the Supreme Court declared the Right of Privacy as a fundamental right.
The court further stated that the Right to Privacy would not be an absolute right and could therefore be limited by a procedure established by the law.
Whereas, intercepting the phonic conversations of a person without prior intimation would tantamount to the infringement of that person's right to privacy.
The power to intercept, record, or disclose before the appropriate government which ordered such interception under special circumstances such as state of emergency or in the interest of public safety is provided under Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, 1885.
Nobody other than the Central Government or the State Government can tap a phone of an individual without prior sanction and shall record the reason for doing so in writing whilst following a proper protocol for doing so.
The weaponization of phone tapping has become a huge problem in India.
Section 69 of the Information Technology Act provides that the Central Government or the State Government have the power to issue directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer resource.
Remedies Available Against Unlawful Interception of Phone Calls:
Unlawful interception infringes the right to privacy guaranteed under the Constitution of India and the aggrieved person can file a complaint in the Human Rights Commission.
An FIR can be lodged in the nearest Police Station when illicit phone interception comes into the knowledge of the aggrieved person.
Moreover, the aggrieved person can approach the Court against the person/company doing such an act, in an unauthorized comportment under Section 26(b) of the Indian Telegraphic Act which provides for the imprisonment of 3 years for persons held for the unlawful interception.
A person can also be prosecuted for authorized interception of telephonic conversations if the same is transferred or handed over in an explicit manner.
Comments