On the the other hand, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Anupam S Sharma, who appeared on behalf of CBI, argued that the interception was conducted subsequent to a valid interception order under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and as per rules laid down under Rule 419 A of the Telegraph Rules and therefore, did not infringe the right to privacy of the petitioner.
Further, it was also submitted that as per the facts of the case, narrated in the FIR, chargesheet and also in the reply filed on behalf of CBI, it was apparent that since the present case related to corruption, it would ultimately affect the economic stability and safety of the country and its citizens.
The Court after examining the rival arguments ruled that in the instant case, for the purpose of interception the calls, all procedures under the Telegraph Act as well as the Telegraph Rules were duly followed by the CBI.
“It is found that the order of interception as well as interception carried out subsequently were fair, reasonable and in accordance with law,” the judgment said.
The disclosure of elaborate reasons for interception orders would be against the modified disclosure requirements of procedural fairness which have been universally deemed acceptable, the Court underscored.
“The law of the land weighs in the favour of the public interest over certain individual interest. In the instant matter as well, the conflict of interest seems to be between the interest of the public and the individual before this Court. However, the material on record as well as the precedents reflect the fact that the interception carried out by the respondent was in accordance with the provisions Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 2007,” the Court said.
The plea was, therefore, dismissed.
Source: Barandbench
