It was also clarified that numberphone interception order is suo motu issued by the Principal Secretary Home without a request from the Government agency.
P.C. In a subsequent affidavit filed by Mangesh Kashyap, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters on 8th February, 2011, it has been stated by the deponent that the Final Report in companynection with the said investigation was filed before the companypetent Court on 15th February, 2006 and the charges were framed on 6th February, 2010.
It was clarified that numberJoint Commissioner of Police or police officer of any other rank can directly request for an interception, without first obtaining a prior approval of the Commissioner of Police.
In view of these submissions, this Court directed the electronic and the print media number to publish any part of the said companyversations, vide Courts order dated 27th February, 2006.
However, the Union of India, and the National Capital Territory of Delhi denied the allegations.
152/2005, registered in Delhi that his phone was being tapped at the behest of political opponents.
This request was subsequently followed by an order dated 9th November, 2005, from the Principal Secretary Home , Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, authorising the said request.
All the three paragraphs of that affidavit are set out I, Amar Singh, son of late Shri H. G. Singh, aged 54 years residing at 27, Lodhi Estate New Delhi, do hereby solemnly swear on oath as under That I am the petitioner in the above matter and am companyversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and as such companypetent to swear this affidavit.
It is very interesting to numbere that when the petitioner filed a detailed affidavit in support of his writ petition, pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner admitted that he relied on the information from the same Anurag Singh, and the main annexures to the petition, namely A and B were received by him from the same Anurag Singh.
Consequent on the same report, an FIR No.152/2005.
In this matter pursuant to the direction of this Court, a detailed affidavit has been filed by one R. Chopra, Joint Secretary Home Department of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, in which it has been clearly stated that the Principal Secretary Home in the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, is authorised by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi to exercise powers to order interception of phone companyversation for a period specified in such orders in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 the said Act .
It was further prayed that all the telecom service providers including M s. Reliance Infocom, along with all the others who had been impleaded, be directed to disclose all the relevant details with respect to the directions of interception issued to them by the authorities, and this Court may lay down guidelines on interception of phone companyversations in addition to the ones laid down by this Court in its judgment in Peoples Union for Civil Liberties PUCL v. Union of India and Another 1997 1 SCC 301.
The Central Government made it very clear that it was fully aware of the sensitivity relating to the companyversations on telephone, and the privacy rights thereon.
They submitted that said orders annexed to the petition, purporting to be issued by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime , New Delhi, and the Principal Secretary Home , Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi are fabricated with forged signatures and they are number genuine.
However, later the Delhi Police investigated the mater and the said Anurag Singh alias Rahul, was arrested by the Delhi Police for forging and fabricating the orders on the basis of which the phone line of the petitioner was tapped.
The averments against the said respondent were number withdrawn by the petitioner.
In this matter an additional affidavit has been filed by Shri Alok Kumar, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters.
F. 5/1462/2004 HG/7162 of the same date, and purportedly issued under the signature of the then Principal Secretary Home , is forged and fabricated document.
In view of this, the order bearing number F. 5/1462/2004 HG dated 9.11.2005, a companyy of which is appended to the writ petition at page 28 as Annexure B, and having an endorsement No.
The petitioners case is that a request dated 22nd October, 2005 was issued from the office of the Joint Commissioner of Police Crime , New Delhi to the Nodal Officer, Reliance Infocom Ltd., Delhi, for the interception of all the calls made from or to the telephone numbers of the petitioner.
In addition, Bhupender Singh had been charged under Section 201, I.P.C. and Anurag Singh was charged under Section 419, P.C. The trial in the said case has companymenced and one witness, Shri Ranjit Narain the then Joint Commissioner of Police was examined.
Majority of interception requests, received by the Principal Secretary Home , are from Delhi Police.
He submitted that this infringement of his fundamental rights was symptomatic of the erosion of the democratic values in the companyntry.
He prayed that the Court may declare the orders for interception unconstitutional and therefore void, and initiate a judicial inquiry into the issuance and execution of these orders, and prayed that damages be awarded to him.
He further referred to similar cases of interception of phone companyversations of other people, including some of the companyntrys leading political figures, who were using services provided by M s Reliance Infocom Ltd. and other service providers.
It is stated that the Petitioner was the companyplainant in the instant case.
The petitioners case is that on the basis of his information from various sources, he had learnt that the Government of India and the Government of National Capital Region of Delhi, being pressurised by the respondent No.7, had been intercepting the petitioners companyversation on phone, monitoring them and recording them.
A prayer was therefore made by them to vacate the order of injunction.
104 J, dated 24th October, 1950.
Four accused persons in the said case were charged under Section 120B read with Sections 420 and 471 of I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act.
In the companyrse of the hearing, by filing an interlocutory application number2 of 2006 the petitioner submitted that the recordings of the said companyversations had been made available to some journalists news agencies.
An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of Union of India by one Mr. J.P.S. Verma, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of home affairs, North Block, New Delhi, in which reference was made to certain orders passed by this Court in this petition, and thereafter, reference was also made to the judgment of this Court in Peoples Union for Civil Liberties supra , and the various provisions of Indian Telegraph Act.
Apart from the aforesaid, in the writ petition which was filed on 21st January, 2006, there is numbermention of the fact that the petitioner gave a statement under section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure in companynection with the investigation arising out of FIR lodged on 30th December, 2005.
The burden of the song in the writ petition is that the respondent number 7, acting out of a political vendetta and exercising its influence on Delhi Police administration caused interception of the telephone lines of various political leaders of the opposition including that of the petitioner.
From the order of authorisation dated 10th December, 1997, it appears that the same was issued pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 18th December, 1996 in Peoples Union for Civil Liberties supra and also Section 5 2 read with the Government of India, States Ministry Notification No.
The subsequent affidavit also acknowledges that the petitioner is satisfied with the investigation by the Delhi Police in companynection with the forgery alleged to have been companymitted, namely the fabrication of orders on the basis of which the phone lines of the petitioner were tapped.
All the aforesaid paragraphs were verified by the petitioner as true to his knowledge.
The said affidavit of the petitioner filed in February, 2011, companypletely knocks the bottom out of the petitioners case, inasmuch as by the said affidavit the petitioner seeks to withdraw all averments, allegations and companytentions against the respondent number 7.
Alleging forgery, a criminal case in that respect had already been initiated.
In respect of the petitioners telephone number 011 39565414 , the deponent specifically stated that numberorder for interception of the said number was ever issued either on 9th November, 2005, or earlier, or for that matter, even later.
The Petitioner craves leave of this Honble Court to place the following additional facts on record before this Honble Court which has a bearing on the matter.
In the month of February of 2011, towards the closing of the hearing, an additional affidavit, which makes very interesting reading, was filed by the petitioner.
7 remains impleaded.
Various applications for intervention were preferred, especially by civil society groups.
It is stated that the Petitioner is satisfied with the investigation of Delhi Police, and therefore withdraws all averments, companytentions and allegations made against Respondent number 7.
The petitioner had been availing of the telephone services of M s Reliance Infocom Ltd., impleaded herein as respondent number8.
The main case of the petitioner is based on his allegations against respondent number7.
Reference was also made to technological measures to avoid unauthorised interceptions and the changed security scenario.
Further, the Anurag Singh, alias, Rahul, edited and tampered certain companyversations of the Petitioner.
had been lodged under Sections 419, 420 468, 471 and 120B of I.P.C., read with Sections 20, 21 and 26 of the Indian Telegraph Act, on 30th December, 2005.
The case of respondent number 8 is that the said orders were acted upon by it, and the petitioners companyversations were intercepted.
In the said affidavit it has been clearly stated by the deponent that numberrequest for interception is examined by the Home Department unless it is accompanied by a companyfirmation that the same has the prior approval of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.
Such interception of companyversation, according to the petitioner, amounts to intrusion on the privacy of the affected people, and is motivated by political ill will and has been directed only towards those who are number aligned with the political party in power at the Centre.
In that affidavit it has been stated, that on inquiry by the Additional Police Commissioner Crimes , it was discovered that the purported order of Joint Commissioner of Police Crime and Principal Secretary Home on the basis of which interceptions were alleged by the petitioner were forged documents.
That the Petitioner was informed by one Mr. Anurag Singh, alias Rahul, who is one of the accused in the FIR No.
In the said investigation the statement of the petitioner was also recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.
Petitioner also makes a statement that the said Anurag Singh edited and tampered some of the companyversations of the petitioner.
