Case Title: Shashikant Joshi v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 565/2022
Decided on: 04/07/2023
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, Shashikant Joshi’s mobile phone was ordered to be intercepted on suspicion that it was possibly being used for “illegal activity relating to incitement to the commission of an offence affecting public safety” for 60 days and extended for another 60 days.
Observing that the orders suffer from manifest arbitrariness and if allowed to stand would amount to permit violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the bench of Justice Birendra Kumar said:
“When the statute provides procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary infringement of the rights to privacy, it must be strictly followed.In other words, required mandates could not have been ignored or superceded by the State or its machinery leading to offend the right under Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
In 2022, Joshi challenged the interception orders on the ground that his right to privacy has been infringed by putting his mobile phones and others on surveillance.he orders are violative of Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India unless the same are consistent with the procedure established by law, it was argued.
Judgement:
The court noted that on the basis of information gathered on interception of mobile calls, an FIR was registered in 2021 under Section 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under Section 201 and 120B of the IPC with the Anti Corruption Bureau Police Station, Jaipur.
Justice Kumar said on bare perusal of the call details disclosed in the FIR, it is evident that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner of having indulged in bribing any public servant and rather in the purported trap proceeding, no graft money was recovered from possession of any of the accused persons including the petitioner.
Perusing the impugned orders, the Court said “it is indicative enough that no circumstance has been disclosed ventilating the objective satisfaction that the impugned orders were necessary for public safety. In absence of disclosure of such material, no prudent person can reach to a conclusion that in fact, it was a case of “in the interest of public safety.”Moreover, no reason has been recorded in writing as required by Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act.”
The impugned orders suffer from manifest arbitrariness and if allowed to stand would amount to permit violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens and the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Therefore, all the three interception orders challenged herein and referred above stand hereby quashed.
The respondent authorities are directed to destroy the intercepted messages/recordings and its copies. Such messages shall not be considered in the pending criminal proceedings at any stage of the proceeding. The petitioner would be at liberty to adopt available legal remedy, for other reliefs sought for, in the writ petition.
Analysis:
The statute provides procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary infringement of the rights to privacy, it must be strictly followed. In other words, required mandates could not have been ignored or superceded by the State or its machinery leading to offend the right under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has mre than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by: Mahima Saini
