The Indian Supreme Court ruled that Indian voters are entitled to learn more about political candidates under article 19(1)(a) of the indian constitution. A 1951 law that said political candidates were not allowed to reveal any information not needed by law was contested by the People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL). The Court reasoned that making basic information about the candidates available helps voters make an informed choice and opens the door for open discussions on the virtues and shortcomings of each candidate.
pucl vs union of india Case Facts
- A voluntary organization named PUCL filed a public interest petition contesting the validity of section 5 (2) of the indian telegraph act, 1885.
- This clause gave the Central or State Governments the authority to intercept communications where they deemed it necessary for public safety, emergency situations, or other purposes, including safeguarding India’s sovereignty, upholding good relations with foreign countries, and upholding public order.
- In light of a report by the Central Bureau of Investigations on the “tapping of politicians phones,” the petitioner argued that this section infringed people’s right to privacy.
pucl vs union of india Issues
- Whether the right to privacy was violated by the use of section 5 (2) of the indian telegraph act or not?
- Whether it was necessary to interpret section 5 (2) of the indian telegraph act to contain procedural safeguards in order to avoid arbitrariness and stop indiscriminate phone tapping or not?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioner claimed that Articles 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution established the right to privacy as a basic freedom.
- The petitioner further argued that, in order to protect the right to privacy and prevent Section 5(2) of the Act from being ruled unconstitutional, it would be necessary to read down the provisions.
- While Section 5(2) was important for a number of state purposes, it was also important to read in procedural safeguards.
- The Petitioner further contended that the only protection capable of removing the element of arbitrariness or unreasonableness was ex parte previous court sanction.
Respondent:
- The Union of India, the respondents, contended that invalidating Section 5(2) would harm the public interest and compromise national security.
- The responders further refuted the accusations of power abuse, claiming that phone tapping could only be approved by a central or state government authority, under particular circumstances, and with enough oversight.
- They further argued that the justification for a phone tapping order had to be documented and that the harmed party might file a complaint with the government to take appropriate action in the event that authority was misused.
- They further said that it was imperative to keep the situation secret and that telling the person whose phone was being tapped would contradict the objective of the practice.
pucl vs union of india Judgment
The Court rendered the following decision:
- The Supreme Court ruled that only the Home Secretary, the Indian government, and state governments has the authority to make an order for telephone tapping in accordance with section 5 (2) of the indian telegraph act.
- The order shall bear the person to whom it is addressed to prevent comparable dispatches as specified in the order from being sent via a public telecommunications system. The person to whom the order is addressed may also be required to expose the material that is interdicted to similar people in a manner that is specified in the order.
- It is important to remember that the information was obtained for a legitimate purpose and in a reasonable manner in accordance with the legal process. If the interception is found to be unlawful, the data that was intercepted will be destroyed.
- The process and the intercepted discussion will be documented in-depth in reports and documents. The use is limited to what is required to meet the following requirements set forth by the court:
- National sovereignty and integrity
- Security of the state
- Public order
- Preventing an offence from being persuaded to be committed
In pucl vs union of india, the Court considered international accords as well as Indian and international legal precedents to uphold the importance of the right to privacy. It was emphasized that only a legally defined mechanism could be used to breach this right. Although the Court accepted that Section 5(2) specified particular situations in which phone tapping was permissible, it also pointed out that there were no procedural protections in place to guarantee a just and reasonable use of this power.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
