HONE T

AMAR SINGH VS.

/P A UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
G
N

PP
E TAPPI

ING HON
/P
ON

(2011) 7 SCC 69, 2011 (5) SCALE 606

H

P E
TA
PPING /

2011
Case Status NOT Telecom service providers must verify the
OVERRULED authenticity of requests for interception of
communication to prevent misuse. Unlawful
interception of communication amounts to
Case Type CIVIL WRIT gross violation of the right to privacy.
PETITION

Additional SURVEILLANCE,
Aspect(s)
of Privacy SEARCH AND
SEIZURE
INFORMATIONAL
PRIVACY

Constitutional ARTICLES
Provision(s)
21,32

Bench
Strength
2
JUDGES
1 opinion by
Justice G.S. Singhvi on behalf of
Justice A.K. Ganguly and himself.

Number of
Opinion(s)
1/0
OPINIONS DISSENT
“Sanctity and regularity in official communication in such
matters must be maintained especially when the service
provider is taking the serious step of intercepting the tele-
phone conversation of a person and by doing so is invad-
ing the privacy right of the person concerned and which
is a fundamental right protected under the Constitution,
as has been held by this Court.”

T
his case dealt with the constitutionality
of phone tapping. The case arose when
the Petitioner came to be informed that
his telephone conversations were being record-
ed by his telecom service provider at the behest
of the Government of NCT of Delhi. He
believed that the wiretapping was being done
because of the political positions he held.
Following this, he approached the Supreme
Court to declare the wiretapping unconstitu-
tional and an infringement upon his right
to privacy.
During the course of the case, the request
received by the telecom service provider from
the Government was found to be falsified. The
Court observed that such unlawful interception
of phone conversations amounted to a gross
violation of the right to privacy. Given the
importance of the issue, the Court observed
that telecom service providers, though bound
by the requests of the Government, are also
under a duty to ensure that the request is
authentic. The Court directed the Government
to frame statutory guidelines in this regard.
However, as the Court believed the Petitioner
had not approached them with clean hands, it
declined to give any relief in the matter.

1

Facts
On 22nd October 2005, a request was allegedly
issued from the office of the Joint Commission-
er of Police, New Delhi to the Nodal Officer,
Reliance Infocom Ltd., Delhi, to intercept all
calls made to and from the Petitioner, Amar
Singh’s telephone number. This was followed
by an official authorization of the request from
the Principal Secretary (Home) of the Govern-
ment of NCT of Delhi.
Issue
A) Whether tapping the Petitioner’s phone
violated his right to privacy under Article 21
of the Constitution.
Arguments
The Petitioner submitted that his right to priva-
cy was violated by the interception, monitoring
and recording of his phone conversations. The
Petitioner referred to similar instances of inter-
ception of other political figures by the Govern-
ment, in pursuance of political ill will. Being a
prominent member of the Samajwadi Party
during the erstwhile Congress rule, the Peti-
tioner alleged that the violation was politically
motivated at the behest of the latter. According-
ly, he prayed to the Court to declare the orders
for interception unconstitutional as they
infringed upon his right to privacy, disclose
details of the orders made, frame guidelines for
the interception of phone conversations, and to
initiate a judicial inquiry into the issuance of
such orders and award damages.
The Government submitted through affidavit
that the impugned request for interception and
subsequent authorization had forged signa-
tures and were completely fabricated. A crimi-
nal case for forgery had been initiated and the
Petitioner had averred that he was satisfied by
the investigation ongoing therein. No request
for the Petitioner’s telephone number and
interception was submitted by the Joint Com-
missioner of Police, and in the absence of the
same no such request could have been suo moto
instituted by the Home Department. It was
shown that the specific request was fraught
with gross errors and mistakes, which indicated
its inauthenticity.
Decision
On the facts of the case, the Court observed that
while service providers were rightly under the
duty to act promptly on a request received from
Government agencies for interception, they
were ‘equally duty bound to immediately
verify the authenticity of such communication’.
The Court noted that given the public element
involved in the service of the telecom provider,
it was required to be vigilant about fake
requests. The Court noted that interception of
phone calls was an invasion of the right to
privacy, which had been recognized by the
Court as a fundamental right, and interception
could only be resorted to in the furtherance of
public interest based on genuine, official
requests, based on a procedure established by
law. The telecom service provider’s failure to
verify the authenticity of a request that
appeared on the face of it suspicious meant that
it had failed in its public duty.
2
 The Court however took note of the casual
manner in which the Petitioner preferred the
current application. He did not adhere to the
procedural requirements regarding submission
of affidavits under Order XIX Rule 3 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by failing to
disclose the sources of his information therein,
or Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
The Court concluded that when invoking
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32, it
was the Petitioner’s duty to follow the same.
The Court also observed that the Petitioner had
constantly shifted his stance as against Respon-
dent No. 7, i.e. the Indian National Congress
and had suppressed facts including his reliance
on the accused in a criminal case for informa-
tion, both of which were indicative of unclean
hands. Thus, despite the aforementioned obser-
vations, the Court dismissed the petition for
being frivolous and speculative in character.
However, the Court gave liberty to the Petition-
er to seek appropriate legal remedy against the
telecom service provider for unauthorized
interception, and also directed the Central Gov-
ernment to frame guidelines regarding inter-
ception of phone conversations.

3
4