People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India
AIR 1997 SC 568
Case Summary
[Fundamental Rights]
[Freedom of Speech and Expression]
[Right to Privacy]
Facts
The PUCL, an NGO, filed a public interest litigation challenging the government’s tapping of phone conversations, arguing it violated the right to privacy. The case was based on allegations that the government had engaged in widespread telephone tapping without adequate safeguards.
Issues
1. Does unauthorized telephone tapping violate the right to privacy under Article 21?
2. What procedural safeguards are necessary to protect citizens’ rights from arbitrary surveillance?
Relevant Legal Provisions
Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty.
Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression.
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885: Provisions on government-authorized interception of communication.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that unauthorized telephone tapping violated the right to privacy under Article 21 and established guidelines for lawful interception of communications to prevent abuse of power. The Court ruled that phone tapping must be authorized only under specific circumstances and with procedural safeguards, including oversight by a review committee. This judgment reinforced privacy protections and laid the groundwork for future rulings on privacy rights, influencing cases like K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
Rishita Vanjani
2nd year
Amity University Rajasthan
Comments