Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1998 – Interception of telephonic messages of public servant

On the interception of telephonic messages of the Petitioner who was working as Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Central), given to the CBI, the FIR for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act was filed.

The legality and validity of the impugned orders permitting inception of telephonic messages of the petitioner was challenged on the grounds that (i) cogent reasons were not given, (ii) there was absence of public emergency and/or public safety and (iii) there was no review of impugned orders by the Review Committee.

HELD that (i) mere failure to give elaborate reasons in the orders would not make the order illegal for non-fulfilment of recording reasons in writing as envisaged under sub-section (2) of section 5; (ii) there is distinction between recording elaborate and succinct reasons and (iii) in cases involving corruption, it cannot be stated that there can be no element of public safety or emergency.

Judgment dated 6.9.2024 of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.3389 of 2024 of Shyamalendu Kumar Das  Vs.   Union of India and others