LexPEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES {PUCL) versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES {PUCL)
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
DECEMBER 18, 1996
[KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.]
B
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 32, 19(1)(a) & (2).
Right to privacy-Telephonic conversatio11 in privacy-Held : fanned
part of right to privacy protected by Art. 21 and Art. 17 of International C
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights->4.lso covered by freedom of speech
and expression under Art. 19(1)(a)-Telephone tapping under S.5(2) of
· Telegraph Act amounted to infraction of Fundamental Rights-Therefore, it
could be resorted to only in accordance with procedure established by law
which must be just, fair and reasonable-Should also be within reasonable
restriction under Art. 19(2)--Further, interceptio11 of telephonic messages D
pennitted under S.5(2) of the Telegraph Act must confonn to conditions laid
down by S.5(2) for such interception-Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Ss .. 5(2)
& 7(2)(b)-{nternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Art.
17-Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Art. 12.
Human Rights->4.rt. 21 must be interpreted i11 confonnity with I11terna-
tio11al Covena11t 011 Civil and Political Rights, 196fr-Art. 12 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 is also similar to Art. 17 of 1966
Covenant.
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885: Sections 5(2) and 7(2)(b).
Telegraphic messages/tapping of telephone conversation-l11terception
of-Resorting to under S.5(2)-Held: "Occurrence of any public emergency"
E
F
or "in the interest of public safety" was condition precedent in addition to
existence of any of the grounds specified in Art. 19(2)-0rder recording such
satisfaction in writing necessary-Substantive law in S.5(2) clearly laid down G
situations/conditions for interception of messages/conversation~ui in the
absence of rules under S.7(2)(b) laying down just, fair and reasonable
procedure for exercise of power under S.5(2), rights guranteed under Arts.
19(l)(a) and 21 could not be safeguarded-Central Government should,
therefore, make rules on the subject-But till such rules were made, procedural . , H
321
322
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1996) SUPP.10 S.C.R.
A safeguards laid down by Supreme Court for exercise of power under S.5(2) to
be followed-However, prior judicial scrntiny could not be provided as a
procedural safeguard for issuing order for telephone tapping in absence of any
provision in that regard in the statute.
B
International Law :
Scope-Not confined to regulating relations between States-But ex-
tended to matters of social concern such as health, education and economics
apart from human rights.
C
Customary International Law-Rules of-Held : if not contrary to
D
Municipal Law shall be deemed to be incorporated in domestic law.
Words and Phrases :
"Right to Privacy" - Meaning of
"Public emergency" and "Public safety" - Meaning of - In the context of
the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
The petitioner, a voluntary organisation, filed the pres~nt writ peti-
E tion • public interest - in the wake of the report on ''Tapping of politicians'
phones" by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The petitioner had
challenged the Constitutional validity of Section 5(2) of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885.
On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that right to privacy was
F a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 19(1) and 21 of the Con-
stitution of India; and that Section 5(2) of the Act be suitably read-down
to include procedural safeguards to rule out arbitrariness and to prevent
the indiscriminate telephone-tapping.
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the interest of
G the security and sovereignty of India and to deal with any other emergency
situation for the protection of national interest, messages might indeed be
intercepted; and that Section 5(2) of the Act clearly laid down the condi-
tions/situations which were sine qua non for the exercise of the power but
the manner in w~ich the said power could be exercised had not been
H provided.
P.U.C.L. V. U.O.I.
323
Disposing of the petition, this Conrt
A
HELD : 1.1. Right to privacy is a part of the right to "life" and
"personal liberty" enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once the
facts in a given case constitute a right to privacy, Article 21 is attracted.
The said right cannot be curtailed "except according to procedure estab-
lished by law". [336-H; 337-A]
B
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. & OExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.