ILLEGAL RECORDING OF AUDIO CONVERSATION IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

The Delhi High Court held that allowing illegally intercepted messages and conversations as evidence would lead to arbitrariness and promote violation of fundamental rights. The Court said that as per Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act (The Act), an order for interception could be issued only during a public emergency or in the interest of public safety, as per the law laid down by the Top Court in PUCL.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh made the above observations while setting aside the 10-year-old order of a special CBI Judge, charging one Jatinder Pal Singh under the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Jatinder was accused of being a middleman and paying a bribe of ₹ two crores to then chairman of the Medical Council of India, Ketan Desai, for allowing admission into the 4th Batch of MBBS in a medical college, bypassing the alleged defects in the process.

The petitioner (Jatinder)approached the Delhi High Court stating that the telephonic conversation was recorded illegally and never sent for forensic analysis. The petition further submitted that the charge sheet filed by the CBI violated its manual, as it never received the approval of the CBI Director necessary for prosecuting a government servant.

The Court was informed that the main accused in the case, Ketan Desai, had been discharged, and as there is no involvement of any public servant in the alleged conspiracy, the prosecution stands void.

The Court said that as per Rule 419A of the Rules under the Act, the order of the Home Secretary granting approval to intercept telephonic conversations is to be given to the review committee within seven days of passing the order. However, in this instant case, there was no material to establish that review of the order of the Home Secretary was conducted.

The HC, therefore, held that records of the intercepted calls are not admissible, as the due procedure for interception and the Rules framed under the Act were not followed by the authorities. The Court allowed the petition and set aside the special CBI court's order.

Author: Papiha Ghoshal