Laws Against Hacking In India

By
 Sylvine
 -
July 1, 2016
6

Share on Facebook
 
Tweet on Twitter
  
In this blog post, Surbhi Kapoor, a student of Amity Law School, Delhi IP
University writes about hacking, a cyber crime covered under the
Information and Technology Act, 2002. The article differentiates between a
hacker and cracker, which not many people know. It also talks about laws
against hacking in India, the essentials that constitute hacking and how a
complaint against hacking should be filed.

 
Introduction

As the country progresses towards a digital age where everything would be

available with the click of a button, the threat of data and private information
being stolen has constantly been disturbing. It is ironical to see that the most
trusted source of information and a store for data can turn out to be a wide
platform for some to steal information. The Information and Technology Act,
2000 (IT Act) covers all types of cyber crime committed in the country
including hacking.

Hacking earlier used to refer to a crime under section 43 of the IT Act but at
the same time, ethical hacking or better known as white collar hacking was
considered legal. Ethical hacking is also being taught by various professionals
at schools and colleges. So a need was felt to differentiate between good and
bad hacking. Under the amendment IT Act in 2008, the word ‘hacker was
removed from the act. The reason for the same was that ethical hacking is
taught by a lot of professionals at various schools and colleges, and colleges
cannot teach anything illegal. So the same word should not be used. The
amendment rephrased section 66 and section 43 by removing the word
hacking from the Act.

Hacking in India

There have been numerous hacking attacks on Indian government websites

where state government websites or defense websites have been hacked.
Some time back, the Principal Comptroller of defense accounts website was
hacked due to which defense officials could not access their salary
information. The government, to reduce hacking of precise work, has agreed
to the proposal of DEITY, which is the department of information and
technology to stop using popular email ids for official purpose and has
sanctioned a budget of Rs. 100 cores to safeguard the data. The websites of
state governments have also been hacked in the past. The official website of
Maharashtra government was hacked, and the hackers were not
traceable.There have been some professional hackers in India who have
taken huge amounts to hack data from websites. In the infamous case of
Amit Tiwari, who was a global hacker, he has hacked more than 950
accounts since 2003 and was caught by the police only in 2014. This shows
the lack of evidence and the difficulty in arresting a hacker.
click above
 

Hacker Vs Cracker
There is a very slight line of demarcation drawn between the two words-
hacking and cracking after the amendment of the IT act in 2008. Hackers are
those people who are very good at computer programming and use their
skills in a constructive way to help the government and various other
organizations to protect their important information and company secrets.
They try to discover loopholes in the software and find reasons for the same.
They constantly try to improve the programs to improve the programming.
They never intentionally damage the data. Whereas cracker id the one who
intentionally breaks into the computer programs of others without having the
authority to do so and has a malicious intention to harm the network
security. However, there is a huge misconception about the two and both the
terms are used interchangeably in today’s context even when they mean
different.

The liability of the cracker 

Civil liability

Section 43A of the IT Act deals with the civil liability of cyber offenders. The
section deals with the compensation that should be made for failure of
protection of the date. His was introduced under the amendment of the act in
2008. The corporate responsibility for data protection is greatly emphasized
by inserting Section 43A whereby corporate are under an obligation to
ensure adoption of reasonable security practices. Further, what is sensitive
personal data has since been clarified by the central government vide its
Notification dated 11 April 2011 giving the list of all such data which includes
password, details of bank accounts or card details, medical records, etc.

Penal liability

Penal liability of cracking arises when the intention or the liability of the
cracker to harm the system or steal any important information gets
established. If the cracker only trespasses the system without any intention
to harm, it only remains a form of civil liability under section 43A. The
criminal trespass can also result in other penal activities punishable under
Indian Penal Code like cyber theft that can be punishable under section 378
of Indian Penal Code.

Essentials of hacking under section 66

Intention-whoever with a malicious intention breaks into the computer of the

other to tamper or steal the data or destroy it has a wrong intention.

A wrongful act or damage to the data or tries to diminish the value of the
data will cover under hacking.

Laws on hacking in India

Section 43 and section 66 of the IT Act cover the civil and criminal offenses
of data theft or hacking respectively.

Under section 43, a simple civil offense where a person without permission of
the owner accesses the computer and extracts any data or damages the data
contained therein will come under civil liability. The cracker shall be liable to
pay compensation to the affected people. Under the ITA 2000, the maximum
cap for compensation was fine at Rs. One crore. However in the amendment
made in 2008, this ceiling was removed. Section 43A was added in the
amendment in 2008 to include corporate shed where the employees stole
information from the secret files of the company.

Section 66B covers punishment for receiving stolen computer resource or

information. The punishment includes imprisonment for one year or a fine of
rupees one lakh or both. Mens rea is an important ingredient under section
66A. Intention or the knowledge to cause wrongful loss to others i.e. the
existence of criminal intention and the evil mind i.e. concept of mens rea,
destruction, deletion, alteration or diminishing in value or utility of data are
all the major ingredients to bring any act under this Section.2

.The jurisdiction of the case in cyber laws is mostly disputed. Cyber crime
does not happen in a particular territory. It is geography less and borderless.
So it gets very difficult to determine the jurisdiction under which the case has
to be filed. Suppose a person works from multiple places and his data gets
stolen from a city while he resides in someother city, there will be a dispute
as to where the complaint should be filed.

How to file a complaint about hacking

A complaint about the cyber crime can be filed at any cyber cell globally.
There are various cyber crime cells in India; a complaint can be filled at any
of these

Firstly write an application to the head of the cyber cell department and the
complaint should contain the name, address, e-mail and telephone number.

Secondly, submit the following documents with the cell;

1. Server logs- log files that get automatically with the server when files
are opened. It saves a list of activities performed on day to day basis.
2. Hardcopy and soft copy of the defected material- all the material that
has been tempered with by the hacker needs to be submitted with the
cyber cell as evidence.
3. A hard copy of the original web pages and the defaced ones- copies of
both the original and defaced material should be submitted so that it
makes the work easy to locate the defaced or tampered material.
4. Details of the control mechanism where the complainant needs to tell
the details of those who had the access to the password and the
computer.
5. If there is any suspicion on any person, a list of the suspects should
also be given for further reference that could help the cyber cell in
investigation

Now days there are even provisions for the complainant to get the access of
the complaint filed and to check the status online without going anywhere.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that hacking poses a serious threat to the virtual world.
Not many people in the country are aware of this theft. There needs to be
more awareness in the country regarding hacking and cracking. The laws
made by the government are stringent but lack a bit of enforceability and
awareness in the society. Most of the minor cases of hacking go unnoticed
because people abstain from filing cases for petty crimes even when there is
harsh punishment for it.Also, it is very difficult to track a virtual hacker due
to lack equipment. Since hacking can happen anywhere in the world, it gets
tough for the police to trace him and punish him in another country. The
punishment can also be a bit more harsh to prevent people from indulging in
such acts.

Scope of right to privacy for

phone tapping
By
 Diganth Raj Sehgal
 -
August 3, 2020
0

Share on Facebook
 
Tweet on Twitter
  
https://bit.ly/3gprB9Z
This article is written by  Nikunj Thakkar.

Introduction
Communication has always been the most significant part and important
invention by human beings. With the advancement in technology and science
the interaction between humans is easy. We can connect to people sitting a
thousand miles away on one touch by phone calls, emails and messages.
There is only one major concern with communication is “Security”. Every
individual has the right to protect the conversation between them which falls
under Article 21 of the Constitution of Indian. Article 21 of our Constitution
lays down that “no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty
except according to the procedure which has been laid down by the law”. The
phrase “personal liberty” also includes within its ambit the right to privacy.
Although this is not mentioned expressly, the right to privacy is an implied
right guaranteed by the Constitution of India. 
The term “phone tapping” means interception of the contents of
communication through a secret connection to the telephone line of one
whose conversations are to be monitored usually without the consent of the
person whose communication is monitored. Here, the question arises about
the  violation of the right of privacy of individuals. Every act without the
consent of the person termed as an illegal act by a private person or public
officer but in the case of public emergency or in the interest of public safety
does not need any consent.

With increasing irregularities and misusing the power of position for the
procedure of phone tapping in India, The Telegraph act,1885 plays a major
role for controlling and avoiding unauthorized phone tapping in our society.
Section 5(2) of Indian Telegraph Act, empowers the government to and to
order interception of messages. On the occurrence of any public emergency,
or in the interest of public safety, the Central Government or State
government or any person specifically authorized by the Central or State
government, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do so, may take
temporary possession of any telegraph established, maintained or worked by
any person licensed under the Indian Telegraph Act. 

The term “intercept” or interception have not defined in the Indian Telegraph
Act but same can be understood by the definition of Major Law Lexicon,
4th Edition, 2010 defines the term interception as the act of listening In and
recording communications, intended for another party for the purpose of
obtaining intelligence. 

       Click Above
The Supreme Court in  1996 judgment in People’s Union for Civil Liberties
(PUCL) v. Union of India, where the petitioner challenged the constitutional
validity of section 5(2) on the basis of infringing the fundamental right to
privacy and the government must adopt the safeguards against the
arbitrariness in the exercise of the state’s surveillance powers. The supreme
Court observed;

19. “The right to privacy – by itself – has not been identified under the
Constitution. As a   concept it may be too broad and moralistic to
define it judicially. Whether right to privacy can be claimed or has been
infringed in a given case would depend on the facts of the said
case. But the right to hold a telephone conversation in the privacy of
one’s home or office without interference can certainly be claimed as
“right to privacy”. Conversations on the telephone are often of an
intimate and confidential character. Telephone conversation is a part of
modern man’s life. It is considered so important that more and more
people are carrying mobile telephone instruments in their pockets.
Telephone conversation is an important facet of man’s private life.
Right to privacy would certainly include telephone-conversation in the
privacy of one” home or office. Telephone-tapping would, thus, infract
 Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is permitted under the
procedure established by law.”

The above provisions clearly indicate that in the event of the occurrence of a
public emergency or in the interest of public safety the Central Government
or the State Government or any officer specially authorized in this behalf,
can intercept messages if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do
in the interest of:

(i) The sovereignty and integrity of India.

(ii) The security of the State.

(iii) Friendly relations with foreign states.

(iv) Public order.

(v) For preventing incitement to the commission of an offence.

In  PUCL case, the Court also laid down detailed safeguards to check
arbitrariness in the issuance of telephone tapping orders, including the
following measures

1. Orders for telephone tapping may only be issued by the Home

Secretary of the central government or a state government. In an
emergency, this power may be delegated to an officer of the Home
Department of the central or state government, and a copy of the order
must be sent to the concerned Review Committee (see below) within
one week.
2. The authority making the order must consider whether the information
which is considered necessary to acquire could reasonably be acquired
by other means.
3. Orders issued under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 shall be valid for
two months from the date of issue.
4. Review Committees shall be constituted consisting of Secretary-level
officers at both the central and state levels. They may evaluate
 whether an interception order has been passed in compliance with the
law, and if it has not, they may set it aside and direct the destruction of
any copies of the intercepted communications.
5. The authority issuing the interception order must maintain records of:
(i) the intercepted communications; (ii) the extent to which material is
disclosed; (iii) the number of persons to whom the material is disclosed
and their identity; (iv) the extent to which the material is copied; and
(v) the number of copies made (each of which must be destroyed as
soon as its retention is no longer necessary).

Similarly in the case of R.M Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, where the

Hon’ble Supreme Court observed,

30. Article 21 was invoked by submitting that the privacy of the appellant’s
conversation was invaded. Article 21 contemplates procedure
established by law with regard to deprivation of life or personal
liberty. The telephonic conversation of an innocent citizen will be
protected by Courts against wrongful or high handed interference by
tapping the conversation. The protection is not for the guilty citizen
against the efforts of the police to vindicate the law and prevent
corruption of public servants. It must not be understood that the
Courts will tolerate safeguards for the protection of the citizen to be
imperiled by permitting the police to proceed by unlawful or irregular
methods. Recently in the case of Vinit Kumar v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, where the CBI ordered to intercept the calls of the
petitioner in the bribe case. Petitioner challenged the said order in High
Court of Bombay on the grounds that such orders were ultra-vires of
section 5(2) of Indian Telegraph act,1885 because as per the rule 419
of Indian Telegraph Act CBI does not have any power to issue any
order for phone tapping. The court observed, 

“We may also add here that if the directions of the Apex Court in PUCL’ case
(supra) which are now re-enforced and approved by the Apex Court in K.T.
Puttaswamy (supra) as also the mandatory rules in regard to the illegally
intercepted messages pursuant to an order having no sanction of law, are
permitted to be flouted, we may be breeding contempt for law, that too in
matters involving infraction of fundamental right of privacy under Article 21
the Constitution of India. To declare that dehors the fundamental rights, in
the administration of criminal law, the ends would justify the means would
amount to declaring the Government authorities may violate any directions
of the Supreme Court or mandatory statutory rules in order to secure
evidence against the citizens. It would lead to manifest arbitrariness and
would promote the scant regard to the procedure and fundamental rights of
the citizens, and law laid down by the Apex Court.

We, therefore, quash and set aside three interception orders dated 29th
October, 2009, 18th December, 2009 and 24th February, 2010 and
consequently direct the destruction of copies of intercepted
messages/recordings. The intercepted messages/recordings stand eschewed
from the consideration of trial Court.”

Following are the 10 Agencies who can intercept the conversation with the
prior procedure under section 5(2), Intelligence Bureau, Central Bureau of
Investigation, Enforcement Directorate, Narcotics Control Bureau, Central
Board of Direct Taxes, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, National
Investigation Agency, R&AW, Directorate of Signal Intelligence and Delhi
Police Commissioner. Many times in the matrimonial disputes where the
husband or wife record the phone produce before the court for seeking
divorce on the basis of call recording. similarly in the case of Rayala M.
Bhuvaneswari vs. Nagaphanender Rayala, where the husband seeks divorce
by recording the call. The court held that,  

“Certain astonishing facts have come to light during the hearing of this
revision. One of the facts relates to the purity of the relation between the
husband and wife. Without the knowledge of the wife, the husband was
recording her conversation on telephone which she was making with her
friends and parents in India. If the husband is of such a nature and has no
faith in the wife even about her conversations to her parents, then the
institution of marriage itself becomes redundant. There should be some trust
between husband and wife and in any case, in my view, the right of privacy
of the wife is infringed by her husband by recording her conversation on
telephone to others and if such a right is violated, which is fundamental, can
such husband, who has resorted to illegal means, which are not only
unconstitutional, but also immoral, later on, rely on the evidence gathered by
him by such means. Clearly, it must not be permitted.”

In the landmark judgement K.S Puttaswamy v. Union Of India, where the

illegal tapping of conversation violates right to privacy is now accepted and
reinforced as a guaranteed fundamental right under Article 21  of the
Constitution of India, by a nine Judge Constitution Bench. The K.S
Puttaswamy case overruled two judgments of M. P. Sharma versus Satish
Chandra and Kharak Singh case. The court observed in the K.S Puttaswamy
case,

“The Court also held that telephone tapping infringes the guarantee of free
speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) unless authorized by Article
19(2). The judgment relied on the protection of privacy under Article 17 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (and a similar
guarantee under Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
which, in its view, must be an interpretative tool for construing the provisions
of the Constitution. Article 21, in the view of the Court, has to be interpreted
in conformity with international law. In the absence of rules providing for the
precautions to be adopted for preventing improper interception and/or
disclosure of messages, the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and
21 could not be safeguarded. But the Court was not inclined to require prior
judicial scrutiny before intercepting telephone conversations. The Court ruled
that it would be necessary to lay down procedural safeguards for the
protection of the right to privacy of a person until Parliament intervened by
framing rules under Section 7 of the Telegraph Act. The Court accordingly
framed guidelines to be adopted in all cases envisaging telephone tapping.”

When any officer or any person intercept or altering, or unlawfully

intercepting or disclosing, messages, or divulging purport of signals the call
without prior permission of authority then the person punished with
imprisonment for term which may extend to three years provided under
section 26 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
Section 26 of Indian Telegraph Act,1885
Telegraph officer or other official making away with or altering, or unlawfully
intercepting or disclosing, messages, or divulging purport of signals

If any telegraph officer, or any person, not being a telegraph officer but
having official duties connected with any office which is used as a telegraph
office.

1. willfully, secrets, makes away with or alters any message which he has
received for transmission or delivery, or
2. willfully, and otherwise than in obedience to an order of the Central
Government or of a State Government, or of an officer specially
authorized [by the Central or a State Government] to make the order,
omits to transmit, or intercepts or detains, any message or any part
thereof, or otherwise than in pursuance of his official duty or in
obedience to the direction of a competent Court, discloses the contents
or any part the contents of any message, to any person not entitled to
receive the same, or
3. divulges the purport of any telegraphic signal to any person not
entitled to become acquainted with the same,
4. he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Conclusion
The conclusive scope of above Article is regarding right to privacy where the
Apex Court expands the scope of privacy which is part of fundamental rights
of Constitution of India but it is not absolute right The limitations which
operate on the right to life and personal liberty would operate on the right to
privacy. Any curtailment or deprivation of that right would have to take place
under a regime of law for interest of public safety. With the rules and
safeguards provided by the supreme court for phone tapping must follow by
the individual.  
What Is The Law On Phone
Tapping In India
By
 Guest Post
 -
May 23, 2016
2

Share on Facebook
 
Tweet on Twitter
  

  In this blogpost, Pramit Bhattacharya, Student, Damodaram Sanjivayya

National Law University writes about the concept of phone tapping in Indian
Context. The post looks at the Procedural and Substantive Safeguards a
person has against unauthorized phone tapping. The post also dwells into the
question of admissibility of the information procured through phone tapping
as evidence.

In the recent times, there has been a lot of advancement in the field of
technology. While the advantages of technology cannot be denied,
everything has a negative side to it also. The world has shrunk a lot due to
the advancement in technology. We can connect to people sitting a thousand
miles away with just sending them a mail or calling or texting them. With
this, the issue of security also comes in. There has been a rise in cases
where the government has started tapping phone calls, texts, and emails of
people in the name of national security. The question that arises here is that
is this not a violation of the right to privacy of a person.

With these incidents on a rise, it is very important to set up rules and

regulations and a legal framework on the issue. The legislature should come
out with laws which state the extent to which phone tapping (or tapping off
any communication) will be allowed. It is also crucial that the Judiciary lays
down some guidelines with regards to using this information as evidence.

Article 21 of our Constitution lays down that no person shall be deprived of

his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure which has
been laid down by the law. The phrase “personal liberty” also includes within
its ambit the right to privacy. Although this is not mentioned expressly, but
the right to privacy is an implied right guaranteed by the Constitution of
India. The Judiciary has also recognized this proposition.

Coming to the issue of phone-tapping, it can be defined as a scheme of

things where telephonic activities are secretly recorded or are listened to, for
the purpose of gaining information about the activities of the person who are
communicating through the call. Phone-tapping is also known as wire-
tapping in some countries.[1]

For obvious security reasons, it is imperative that phone-tapping be done to

some extent, but only in an authorized manner. If done in an unauthorized
manner, it can lead to a breach of the right to privacy and may lead to
prosecution.

Phone tapping in India

Under entry 31 of the Union List of the Constitution and Entry 7 of the
Federal List of the Government of India Act, 1935, telephonic along with
other communication devices is mentioned.[2]
Both the State Government and the Central Government has the right to tap
phones of people under Section 5 (2) of the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885.
[3] There are times when the investigation requires that the authority or
agency record the conversation of a person who is under suspicion. Such
authorities must seek permission from the Home Ministry before they can tap
the calls of the person. In the application to the Ministry, the agency or
authority has to mention reasons and the needs for tapping the phone calls.
In the case of State, the permission has to be taken from State Home
secretary. A telephonic conversation of political leaders cannot be tapped
officially.[4]

Safeguards against Phone-Tapping

1. Procedural Safeguards

In the last decade, a lot of scandals came to light regarding the issue of
phone tapping. The issue became so intense that it was turned into a political
agenda. Politicians from opposite parties accused each other. It was alleged
that phones were tapped by the government on command of the ruling
party. It was then that the Peoples Union of Civil Liberties [PUCL] filed a
PIL[5] to the Apex Court requesting them to clarify the law on the point of
electronic tapping and interception.[6] The petitioners contended that the
arbitrary power provided under Section 5 (2) of the Indian Telegraphic Act,
1885 should be regulated. They also contended that the amendment which
was made to Section 5 (2) in 1971 was extremely dangerous as it allowed
interception not just in cases of emergencies and for public order and safety,
but also for incitement of offenses.

The Apex Court opined that tapping of phones or wiretaps as a  whole is a

serious invasion of privacy of an individual, and also recognized that right to
privacy falls under Article 21 of the Constitution. But Section 5 (2) was held
to be Constitutional by the Court. Right to privacy is also enshrined in Article
17[7] of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to
which India is a party. When a person is making a telephonic call and
communicating with the other party, the person is also exercising his right to
freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a). Thus, tapping of
the call would violate this provision, until and unless it falls under reasonable
restriction provided under Article 19 (2). The point to be noted here is that
the Apex Court did not want to scrap the system of phone tapping in totality
because it felt that in some cases it is very necessary to take a few steps like
this for the security of the nation. But the Court did mandate the setting up
of high-level committee to review the tapping of phones and ascertain
whether the taping was legal or not.

After the PUCL case, the Union Government bought some amendment in the
Indian Telegraphic Rules, 1951 and inserted Rule 491-A to regulate the
tapping of phones.[8] But this amendment also did not change the situation
much.

2. Substantive Safeguards

Although Section 5 (2) was not held unconstitutional by the Court, they also
recognized the fact that there was an absence of procedural safeguards for
the substantive provisions. The Court stated that it was very crucial to back
the substantive law with some procedural laws. The Court opined that if the
proper procedure is not followed, it will render the substantive provisions.

The Telegraph Act do provide some substantive safeguard also. Section 25 of

the Act states that if any person intends to intercept or make himself
acquainted with any message and tampers with any deceive with that motive
in mind shall be punished with an imprisonment which may extend up to
three years or fine or both.[9]
Remedies

1. Unauthorized tapping or interception is a violation of the right to

privacy, and the aggrieved party can file a complaint with the National
Human Rights Commission.
2. The aggrieved party can also file an FIR against unauthorized tapping.
3. The aggrieved person can also move to the Court against the person
doing any unauthorized act under Section 26 (b) of the Indian
Telegraphic Act.[10]

Taped conversation as evidence

In the judicial pronouncement of R M Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra,[11] 

the question was debated whether a criminal prosecution could be initiated
on the basis of a telephonic conversation or not when the conversation is of a
self-incriminating nature. In the following case, the Coroner of Mumbai
wanted to take some bribe from a doctor. The doctor instead of giving the
bribe contacted the Anti-Corruption Bureau. A trap was laid, and the officials
asked the doctor to have a telephonic conversation with the Coroner, and in
that conversation, the Coroner made some self-incriminating statements like
the amount of bribe, place of delivery, etc. The conversation was recorded,
and charges were filed on the basis of the conversation.

The Court appreciated the method employed but then realized that it may
give way to many such activities like this. The Court added that such
methods should be used very sparingly under proper authorization and
direction.

In the case of S Pratap Singh v State of Punjab,[12] the Supreme Court

admitted a tape recorded telephonic conversation which took place between
the Chief Minister’s wife and a doctor. In the case of Yusuf alli Esmail Nagree
v State of Maharashtra,[13] a conversation was recorded by placing a tape
record inside a room. This conversation was also admitted by the Court as
evidence. The Court stated that in case the interception was authorized, and
the person who was being taped had no idea about it and he was not under
duress or coercion.

While this method is a relatively easy method to collect evidence, it also

encroaches on the right of the citizen. Also, there are no guidelines given
about the means through which the results can be achieved. Unfortunately,
the safeguards are inadequate to protect the victim in such a case.

Concluding Remarks

It cannot be agreed more that advancement in technology has brought the

world closer than before. But as long as criminals and terrorist use
technology in furtherance of their motives, the government will also put
some counter-measures in place, which may intentionally or unintentionally
invade our private lives. Tapping or intercepting of calls, messages and
emails can be considered as a necessary evil. The problem with these kinds
of issues is that everyone condemns them, but nobody refrains from using
these methods.
All said and done, even if the procedure is not scrapped entirely, there
should be an extent to which it should be practiced. If it is not regulated,
private lives of people will be at a serious risk.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge,

referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:  

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more

amazing legal content
 
 
References:
[1]  http://www.ssrn.com

[2] HM Seervai, Constitutional Law of India,  vol 3, 4th edn, NM Tripathi,

1996

[3] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1445510/

[4] Report of Standing Committee on Home Affairs

[5] http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Law/2009/telegraph-act.html

[6] http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/law-phone-tapping-india/

[7] 1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his

privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his
honor and reputation.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such
interference or attacks.
http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx

[8] http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/rule-419-a-indian-
telegraph-rules-1951

[9] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1034087/

[10] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/87176/

[11]  AIR 1973 SC 157

[12]  AIR 1964 SC 72

[13] AIR 1968 SC 147