Call Interception Valid in Corruption Cases if Public Safety Is at Risk: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has recently held that call interception is valid in corruption cases, provided the economic scale of the offence meets the threshold of “public safety”.

A bench led by Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the corruption allegation in the case at hand was not trivial, as it involved a substantial sum of INR 2,149.93 crore.

The Court held that this satisfies the 'public safety' threshold under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, thereby justifying the interception of calls.

"All allegations in relation to corruption would have the capacity of influencing the public at large. The allegations herein don’t relate to a trivial project but one that was awarded for ₹2149.93 crores, where the work sought by way of influence would have been of a substantial sum as well. The economic scale of the offence, in the opinion of this Court, satisfies the threshold of “public safety,” the Court said.

Highlighting that corruption has a 'pervasive' impact on a nation’s economy and can affect everything from infrastructural development to resource allocation, the Court said, "Corruption by a public servant has far-reaching consequences as it serves to not only erode public trust and cast aspersions on the integrity of public institutions, but also renders the public at large susceptible and vulnerable by threatening the economic safety of the country."

 High Court was dealing with a plea filed by Aakash Deep Chouhan, challenging the framing of charges by the trial court under Section 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy) and Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (bribery by a commercial organisation).

The petitioner was also seeking directions for expunging/destruction of telephonic messages/calls allegedly unlawfully intercepted by the CBI.

According to the CBI, Sanjay Kulkarni, MD of M/s. Capacite Structures Limited was trying to get a part of the work on a sub-contract basis from M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. (P) Ltd., which was awarded a contract for redevelopment of the ITPO Complex into an Integrated Exhibition-Cum-Convention Centre at Pragati Maidan, Delhi by M/s. NBCC (India) Ltd. (a government enterprise).

He approached Rishabh Aggarwal, a private individual with links to public servants, who then contacted Pradeep Mishra, an Assistant Director in the IB (on deputation from BSF). Pradeep allegedly claimed he could influence NBCC in return for a Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle as a bribe.

In order to facilitate this arrangement, Sanjay Kulkarni’s employee, petitioner Aakash Deep Chouhan, allegedly purchased and delivered the motorcycle to Pradeep as part of the illegal gratification.

The CBI trap team had also recovered the motorcycle from the accused Pradeep, along with an amount of INR 1,45,660/- used for purchasing the motorcycle. The CBI's special unit had intercepted calls from five mobile numbers—two belonging to the accused Rishabh, and one each belonging to the accused Pradeep, the accused Sanjay, and the petitioner.

During the hearing, the petitioner argued that the interceptions were unlawfully and illegally carried out by the investigating agency, in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights and statutory safeguards, due to which the call recordings borne out of the interceptions were inadmissible as evidence.

Taking note of the submissions, the Court upheld the interception as valid.

"Although every person has a fundamental right to privacy, the said right is not absolute and it can be curtailed by procedure established by law. The aforesaid provision empowers the Central Government or a State Government or any officer specially authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government to legally carry out interception or surveillance in the event of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety," the High Court added.

Finding prima facie evidence suggesting the petitioner's role in the criminal conspiracy to deliver a bribe, the Court held, "In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order or to order destruction of the intercepted call recordings."

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the present petition.

For Petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Dubey, Adv. (through VC) Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Mr. Gautam Khazanchiand Mr. Mohd. Ashaab, Advs. 

 For Respondents: Mr. Ravi Sharma, SPP-CBI with Mr. Swapnil Choudhary, Mr. Ishaan Bhardwaj, Mr. Shivam Mishra & Ms. Madhulika Rai Sharma, Advs. for CBI  Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kansal and Mr. Amit Kumar Rana, Advs. for R2 / UOI. 

Case Title: AAKASH DEEP CHOUHAN versus CBI & ANR.

Read Judgement here: