Author: Harshit Mishra

Citation: 2011 AIR SCW 3297, 2011 (7) SCC 69

Court: Supreme Court of India 

Bench: G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.

Date of Judgement: May 11, 2011  

Relevant Provision/Statutes: Art. 19(1)(a) & Art. 21 of the constitution, Sec. 5, 5(1), 20, 21, 25, & 26 of Indian Telegraph act, 1885.

Brief Facts: In this case, plaintiff Amar Singh, a well-known Indian politician, one day discovered that his private phone calls were allegedly being tapped by his telephone service provider named M/s Reliance Infocom Ltd. without his proper authorization. As a result of that, Amar Singh filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 39 of 2006 before the Honorable Supreme Court under art. 32 of the Indian Constitution; the petitioner had sought to protect his fundamental right to privacy under art. 21 of the constitution. Amar Singh further contended that the Union of India and the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, influenced by the Indian National Congress (Respondent No. 7), instigated this unauthorized phone tapping.

Issues involved in the case: The following issues are involved in this case:

1. Does the alleged interception of the petitioner’s private call conversation without his authorization violate his fundamental right to privacy under art. 21 of the Indian Constitution?
2. To what extent should affidavits attached in writ petitions, particularly in the Supreme Court, adhere to the procedural requirements and evidentiary value of attached affidavits stipulated by the Code of Civil Procedure and Supreme Court Rules, particularly regarding verification, source disclosure, and personal knowledge?
3. What are the expected standards of conduct for parties approaching the Supreme Court, and under which circumstances will the court apply the “clean hands doctrine” to deny anyone any kind of relief on the basis of dishonesty of a litigant, concealment of fact, and inconsistent positions? Here, the clean hands doctrine means an equitable defense provides that if a party seeking legal relief from the court, they must not have acted or indulged in any kind of unethical, illegal, or bad faith action in the course of their claim.
4. What is the extent of responsibilities and duty of telecom companies like service providers that can verify the validity and authenticity of government orders, especially in those conditions when service providers have faced such kinds of orders that clearly consist of irregularities and ambiguities?

Argument of Parties:

1. Petitioner’s Argument: Petitioner argued before the honorable court that 

• Unauthorized phone tapping is a clear violation of my right to privacy, which is granted as a fundamental right in the art. 21 of the Indian Constitution. 
• Petitioner blamed the government of India & Delhi government for illegal phone tapping, and this kind of activity has been done under the influence of a respondent no. 7 (Indian National Congress).
• Phone tapping activity is completely politically influenced, and only those individuals are targeted who are not part of the member of the ruling party in the center.
• The telecom company has presented purported interception orders as evidence of illegal surveillance by claiming that those orders are authentic and show the proven action of the government.
• Sought judicial intervention for declaring the interception orders unconstitutional, initiating an inquiry, awarding damages, and establishing guidelines for phone interception.

1. Defendants’ Argument: Defendant argued before Hon’ble Court that

• Denied all allegations of infringement of the right to privacy of the plaintiff and any kind of illegal phone tapping.
• Alleged to the plaintiff for presentation of forged, frivolous, and fabricated documents related to the interception order.
• Proper investigation initiated into forgery of alleged interception orders.
• Further argued that petitioner’s claims were based on unbelievable and fabricated evidence.
• Service provider, Reliance Infocom (Respondent No. 8), stated that they have taken action on the basis of government official orders by taking a defense that they were not responsible for deep and peer review of authenticity of government directives/orders in emergency situations.

1. Argument of Interveners (Civil Society Group): Interveners argued before the honorable court that

• Argued, Plaintiff’s conversation is a public conversation in the position of a public official. 
• Claimed that citizens have the right to know about the subject matter of these kinds of conversations under art. 19(1)(a) (Right to freedom of speech and expression).
• Prayed for the court to nullify the interim order of injunction that restrained the media from publishing the conversations, advocating for the public’s right to information.

Judgement of Court: The Court heavily criticized the petitioner’s affidavit as perfunctory, showing carelessness, and not complying with Order XIX Rule 3 of the CPC and Order XI Rules 5 and 13 of the Supreme Court Rules. The petitioner was found to have misled the court by relying on these forged documents and suppressing the fact that he had provided a statement under Section 161 CrPC in the forged investigation. The court held that Reliance Infocom (respondent no.) failed in its duty by not exercising reasonable care in verifying the authenticity of the interception order, especially given the numerous glaring errors in it. The Court clarified that service providers must act responsibly and should, even while acting promptly, attempt to verify the genuineness of interception requests, particularly those that appear manifestly flawed. While dismissing the writ petition, the Court granted the petitioner the liberty to initiate proceedings against the service provider (respondent No. 8) in an appropriate forum if advised, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of such a potential case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found the petition to be frivolous and speculative in character, based on an incorrect presentation of facts and suppression of material information.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Amar Singh. The dismissal was based on procedural impropriety, misrepresentation of facts, and lack of “clean hands” on the part of the petitioner, rather than on the substantive issues of privacy and phone interception itself. The Court found the petition to be frivolous and speculative in character, based on an incorrect presentation of facts and suppression of material information. The court has been redefining the scope of the right to privacy under this case.