Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 

A.              THE CHALLENGE


2)              Petition raises challenge to Orders dated 9 March 2018 and

17 March 2018 passed by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India under provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of Indian Telegraphs Act, 1998 directing interception of telephonic messages to and from Petitioner's mobile phones numbers and disclosure thereof to Director, CBI. 

B.              FACTS


3)              Narration of few basic facts, shorn of unnecessary details,

as a prologue to the judgment would be necessary. Petitioner came to be appointed as Labour Enforcement Officer, (Central) in the year 1987. In 2017, he was posted as Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) at Dehradun, Uttarakhand. By order dated 9 October 2017, he was transferred to Mumbai where he joined on 11 October 2017 and started 6 September 2024 Neeta Sawant WP-3389-2024-JR functioning as Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). While working in Mumbai, the Petitioner had procured two mobile phone numbers, viz. 8218574304 and 9968004524. On 9 March 2018, first Respondent passed order authorising interception of any message from and to the mobile phone bearing No. 8218574304 relating to clandestine contact/movement/activity etc. The order was passed in exercise of powers by the Central Government under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (Telegraph Act). On 17 March 2018, similar order was passed in respect of Petitioner's other mobile number i.e. 9968004524. It appears that in pursuance of the orders dated 9 March 2018 and 17 March 2018, certain messages of Petitioner were intercepted by the first Respondent and provided to CBI, based on which FIR bearing No. RC/BA1/2018/A0011 was registered against Petitioner and other officials working under him under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is alleged in the FIR that a reliable source information was received that Petitioner was indulging in corrupt and illegal activities and criminal conspiracy with other persons and staff working in the office of Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and seeking illegal gratification for official acts/functions like processing of renewal/issuance of labour licenses, certificate of registration, building and other works, construction work certificates and deciding on inspection matters etc. The FIR alleges that the source information revealed that M/s. Som Projects Pvt. Ltd had undertaken project in Colaba, Mumbai and two personnel of the said Company were in regular touch of the Petitioner relating to the work of renewal/issuance of licenses and other pending works in the office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai. The FIR alleges that Petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1,20,000/- in 6 September 2024 Neeta Sawant WP-3389-2024-JR three packets of Rs.70,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- for himself and two other public servants. The FIR was registered after learning that the Company person was likely to deliver illegal gratification to the Petitioner and other two public servants. CBI alleges that a trap was conducted on 20 April 2018 in which the bribe amount was recovered from Petitioner and the bribe amounts of Rs. 70,000/- and Rs.20,000/- were recovered from Petitioner's cabin and the third bag of bribe amount of Rs.30,000/- was recovered from the backpack of another public servant. CBI also alleges recovery of license issued after delivery of bribe amount from the backpack of Shri. Pradeep Vishwakarma, employee of Som Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Further it is also seen that the first respondent passed the order with application of mind taking into consideration the circumstances prevailing in the matter after having satisfied on the basis of the material placed before the authority that the circumstances of the case warrants lawful interception. The five circumstances laid under Section (5) (2) of the Indian Telegraph Act related to the public emergency or interest of the public safety. The authority is within the powers conferred by the Act to order for lawful interception. It would also be seen that not only the bodily injury to the members of the public or the injury to a minimum number of persons would constitute public safety. With the latest communication tools in the form of powerful mobile phones becoming available in every hand in the country which are equipped with applications ensuring encrypted communication. The available avenues with the potential criminals, have increased manifolds and it is becoming increasingly difficult to prevent and detect crime. Restricting the concept of public safety to the mere "situations that would be apparent to the reasonable persons" will exclude most of the actual threats which present the most grave circumstances like terrorist attacks, corruption at high places, economic and organised crimes, most of which are hatched in the most secretive of manners. In most of the circumstances, threat to public safety is from hidden factor which are neither apparent nor obvious to the general public and members of the law enforcement community and the information about these circumstances and factors cannot be connected by any other reasonable means. In addition, most of such information, is sensitive in nature, which may not be circulated in the public domain. Therefore, the first respondent passed the order to intercept phone messages of the petitioners herein.