Author : Krishika Yadav , Avantika University Ujjain (M.P.)
To the Point
This case is first case in the history of India which explains the concept of Right To Privacy in detail . When PUCL (People Union of civil liberties) filed the case and knocked the door of Justice at Supreme court of India , challenges the surveillance power of government which led court to give judgement and made Privacy a fundamental right within article 21
Legal Jargons which are used –
In this judgement article 21 has been expanded , Court also given principal like doctrine of proportionality ,procedural safeguards and constitutional validity which were applied due to which power of state and rights of an individual were balanced .
The Proof
This case started when they are report and complaints got filed and that report it was reported that phones of some individual and of some politician are getting tapped without any legal process. PUCLraised this matter in Supreme Court in which following constitutional violation were mentioned – :
Article 21 -violation of personal liberty and dignity second
article 19 (1) (a) -infringement of freedom of speech
Article 14- arbitrary actions against the principal of equality
Abstract
PUCl v. Union of India (1997) is an landmark judgement in which Supreme Court ruled that without adequate safeguard telephone tapping will be declared as unconstitutional. Court also assumed Privacy is an implicit fundamental right. Guidelines were drawn wihich are still applicable . This article explains the background , all legal point and long term impact of this case.
Case laws
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301
Bench: Kuldip Singh & S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
Held:
PUCL, a voluntary organisation, filed a public interest petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. This section allowed the Central or State Governments, during public emergencies or for public safety reasons, to intercept messages when they believed it was necessary on grounds such as protecting India’s sovereignty, maintaining friendly relations with other nations and preserving public order. The Petitioner contended that this section violated individuals’ privacy rights, particularly in light of a report by the Central Bureau of Investigations on the “Tapping of Politicians’ Phones.”
Key Judicial Observations:
1. Right to Privacy is not absolute but any restriction must be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate.
2. Telephone conversations are an essential facet of privacy and require protection.
3. Procedural safeguards were introduced by the Court to prevent executive overreach, including:
Approval only by the Home Secretary.
Review Committee to examine necessity. Time-bound authorization (max 6 months).
Record maintenance and destruction post-use.
Relevant Precedents and Developments
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963)
Surveillance held partially unconstitutional.
Recognized a limited form of privacy under Article 21.
Gobind v. State of M.P. (1975)
Affirmed that right to privacy is implied under Articles 19 and 21.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)
Explicitly recognized right to privacy as a fundamental right.
Overruled M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh to the extent they denied privacy as a fundamental right.
The PUCL case served as an important foundation for this verdict.
Conclusion
PUCL v. Union of India is an progression and protection judgement which keeps state surveillance power under the legal structure. This case was the first step towards turning privacy a meaningful right. In today’s digital Era this is an important and relevant case. Surveillance id extended not just to phone but to the data, the internet and social media.
FAQS
What was the main fact of this case?
This case telephone tapping where Supreme Court order without any safeguard phone tapping is a violation of article 21
In this case which law has been challenge?
Section 5 (2) of Indian Telegraph at 1885 ,which allows only on special circumstances telephone tapping is allowed.
Did court declared this section unconstitutional?
No court declared this section constitutional and with amendment they added safeguards to it.
When did right to privacy formerly become a fundamental right?
Justice PS Puttaswamy case 2017 Supreme Court explicitly declared right to privacy as a fundamental right under article 21
Is PUCL guidelines are valid yet ?
Yes guidelines this case laid our still applied in surveillance authorities and for review.
