SC on Interception of Communication and FRs under IC
- In PUCL vs Union of India (1996): There should be a just and fair procedure to regulate the powers of interception of communication and to safeguard the rights of citizens under Articles 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of IC.
- Safeguards mandated by SC (PUCL vs Union of India)
- Establishing necessity: The order should highlight the objective and necessity to intercept, monitor, or block messages or suspend Internet services.
- Purpose limitation: Use of intercepted material should be limited to the minimum that is necessary to meet the objective,
- Time limit: Initial order only to be valid for two months, extension of a maximum of six months at once,
- Issuance of orders: By high-ranked officials (Home Secretary) and mandatory review (by a Committee headed by Cabinet Secretary).
- Oversight Mechanism: Oversight through a committee consisting exclusively of government officials.
- In KS Puttaswamy’s (2017) case, SC recognised the right to privacy as a facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- In Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020, suspension of Internet services), SC held freedom of speech and expression and freedom of trade and business over the Internet are protected under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the IC.
|