Technology has recently assimilated into every aspect of our existence. Our daily activities are now more intertwined then ever since the globe evolved into a global village. It is clear that as social media and advanced technologies have developed, our lives have gotten less private. Protecting people’s privacy so become more crucial than ever.
Introduction
Every person is entitled to the fundamental right of privacy, which is safeguarded by the Indian Constitution. No one “shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law,” according to Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to privacy covers the protection of confidential and a private deets , communication, and personal agencies. Given that telephone conversations are one of the primary forms for discussion in the current era of technology, the prospect of eavesdropping in on or covertly recording them has become a source of concern. In the latest case, Sanjay Pandey v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Delhi High Court focused on the problem and have emphasised how such actions constitute invasions of privacy and infringe people’s fundamental rights.
This piece looks at the specifics of the case, studies the laws, gives the arguments of both sides, digs into the court’s remarks, and emphasises the importance of the ruling in preserving the right to privacy via the final paragraph.
Call Recording and Conflict
Phone tapping refers to eavesdropping in on another person’s voice communication covertly and without that person’s knowledge. In accordance with Article 20 and Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, employing a person’s exchange against them is against their right to life and privacy, and it also violates their right to remain silent and the prohibition against using one’s own words against oneself.. The acceptance of call recordings as testimony in court goes against basic fundamental rights, which form the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, and is prohibited by law. There is no laws governing this issue. In the 1973 case Kesavananda Bharati V. State of Kerala, which upheld the twenty-fourth constitutional amendment Act, which restricted the ability of Parliament to change Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court proposed the Basic Structure of the Indian the Constitution. As a result, handling the problems with phone taping and the legality of call recordings in court requires a focused strategy..
Case Details: Sanjay Pandey vs. Directorate of Enforcement
In the case of Sanjay Pandey vs. Directorate of Enforcement, the High Court of Delhi rendered a judgment on December 8, 2022. The case involved allegations of illegal interception and recording of phone calls by ISEC Services Private Limited (ISEC) at the National Stock Exchange (NSE) between 2009 and 2017. It was claimed that ISEC recorded calls made by various NSE officials without their knowledge or consent.
Facts of the Case
The National Stock Exchange (NSE) hired ISEC Services Private Limited (ISEC) to examine data and find cybervulnerabilities. As part of its responsibilities, NSE sent ISEC a hard disc every week that contained call data that had been captured in advance. They were in charge of spotting questionable calls about information and data security. Initially, a system established by M/s Comtel between 2009 and 2012 was used to record calls. Then, NEXSUS Techno Solutions Pvt. Ltd.’s installation was used.
According to a case filed by the CBI, between 2009 and 2017, ISEC, along with others, unlawfully intercepted Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) lines at the NSE and recorded communications without the permission of several NSE personnel.
Following the filing of a FIR based on the complaint, Mr. Sanjay Pandey was taken into custody for violating several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Information Technology Act, the Indian Telegraph Act, the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act by participating in ISEC activities during the specified time period. Additionally, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a case against Mr. Sanjay Pandey under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), based on the aforementioned filed FIR.
The ED detained Mr. Sanjay Pandey, who is accused of being actively involved in ISEC throughout the specified time. He then submitted a bail application to the Delhi High Court.
Legal Provisions and Arguments
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were among the statutes that needed to be interpreted in this case. The ED said that ISEC had violated many provisions of the Telegraph Act and Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act by listening in on and recording phone calls without the agreement of the parties involved. Furthermore, according to the ED, ISEC’s income from offering these services constituted “proceeds of crime” under the PMLA.
On the other hand, ISEC argued that NSE has been listening in on calls made from landlines set up inside of its buildings since 1997. The plan, according to ISEC, involves giving NSE a hard disc with call data that had been recorded in advance. ISEC would then examine the data and submit reports based on its findings. According to ISEC, their job involved reporting suspect calls based on content and locating system flaws, all with NSE’s knowledge and permission.
Observations of the High Court of Delhi
The High Court of Delhi made important remarks on the invasion of one’s right to privacy during the bail hearings by tapping phone lines or secretly recording calls. The court determined that these actions violated the basic right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution by invading someone’s privacy. The court emphasised that it is improper to record phone calls without the parties’ consent..
The claims were further examined by the court in light of relevant legislation. The court observed that the prosecution had not identified the victim who had incurred a wrongful loss with regard to the offences under the Indian Penal Code. Regarding the clients who were allegedly duped or taken advantage of, there were no specifics provided in the lawsuit. The court emphasised the lack of any witnesses or complaints from these accused clients.
Regarding violations of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the court came to the conclusion that because NSE is a private corporation, the PC Act’s rules did not apply to the business activities between ISEC and NSE. The court ruled that without any claims involving the payment or receipt of bribes or other illicit gratification, no violations of Section 13 of the PC Act could be shown.
The court also pointed out that the violations of the Telegraph Act and Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, which punish the illegal recording and tapping of phone calls, were not included as scheduled offences. The offence under Section 72 of the IT Act, which deals with violation of confidence and privacy, was not also proven in this case, the court emphasised.
The court determined that no scheduled offence was prima facie proven in the current instance based on these considerations. Because there was no criminal conduct connected to a scheduled offence, the court came to the conclusion that no proceeds of crime had been produced. The court granted bail to Mr. Sanjay Pandey after citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary &Ors. vs. Union of India &Ors.
Admissibility of Call Recording in India
Call recordings are admissible as valid evidence in the court within the territory of India. These pieces of evidence are subjected to certain conditions, namely,
1) The conversation must be relevant to the case: The voice in the recording must be recognizable and the original recording shall be produced before the court with editing, deletion, or alteration. The authenticity of the recording shall be backed by solid proof by the presenter. The Audio in the recording must be audible with the least surrounding disturbance.
2) Reliability of evidence: The court is the sole authority to decide the degree of reliability of call recording produced before the court as evidence
3) Corroborative evidence: Call recordings are used as corroborative evidence submitted in the court by either party to the conversation.
4) Accurate account: The court cited that before submitting the call recordings, the accuracy of time, place, and recording must be proved by competent witnesses and backed by relevant accounts related to the case. The call recordings must be kept sealed in custody and prevent them from being manipulated.
Right to Privacy in relation to Phone tapping
The right to privacy, as modified by a recent Supreme Court decision, is a crucial component of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The right to privacy of an individual is violated when their telephone is intercepted without their knowledge. But if a unique circumstance emerges, the government can take similar action. The Telegraph Act’s section 5(2) grants the government the authority. The clause established under section 5(2) grants the government the authority to intercept a telephone in the public interest or in an emergency. The government is given limited authority under section 5(2) since it concerns an individual’s right to privacy. No one can eavesdrop on a telephone call. a person acting independently from governmental approval. Only when the government can demonstrate that doing so would be justified under the circumstances may it use its legal authority to intercept someone’s phone calls. Because a person has a right to privacy and a right to privacy protection, the government may exercise that right but only outside of certain bounds.
Conclusion
The ruling in the matter of Sanjay Pandey v. Directorate of Enforcement emphasises how crucial it is to safeguard private and uphold the right to privacy guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court’s findings set a clear position on the issue of telephone tapping or call recording without authorization as a violation of privacy and the basic right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. The decision emphasises the significance of permission and appropriate authorization when carrying out actions that violate someone’s privacy..
The preservation of privacy is essential in the digital age, as telephone conversations are frequently used for personal communication. The observations made by the Delhi High Court in this judgement offer clarification and direction on the laws governing such actions. The ruling underlines the requirement for a strong framework to safeguard people from unjustified intrusion into their private communications and establishes a solid precedent for maintaining the right to privacy. It makes it quite plain that any invasion of privacy, including the unauthorised listening to or recording of calls, would not be permitted and will be viewed as a violation of people’s constitutional rights..
a person without taking permission from the government. Government can exercise its rights to intercept an individual’s telephone only to a certain extent, by showing reasonable grounds to do so. Government can exercise its right but outside a particular ambit because an individual has a right to privacy and he also has a right to safeguard his right to privacy.
