Phone Tapping Case: SC Directs Former Intelligence Chief Prabhakar Rao to Surrender by Friday Morning

In a significant hearing in the Telangana phone-tapping case, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday took a firm stance on the anticipatory bail plea of former Telangana Intelligence Chief T. Prabhakar Rao, a key accused in the alleged illegal interception of private communications of politicians, judges and other persons and directed him to surrender to police custody amid escalating forensic findings in the probe.

Today’s proceedings, before a Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan, saw heated submissions on cooperation with the investigation and allegations of evidence tampering, with the court making clear that protective relief should not become an impediment to effective investigation.

The hearing revolved around the State’s application to vacate or modify the interim protection granted to Rao from coercive action and the Telangana government pressed its argument that Rao was not fully cooperating with the probe.

The Government’s counsel highlighted the discovery of critical forensic evidence and emphasized that ongoing non-cooperation had hindered the investigation’s progress, a point underscored in submissions made before the Bench.

In response, Rao’s counsel maintained that he had cooperated with authorities and that any perceived gaps were misconstrued or exaggerated.

Senior advocates appearing for Rao contended that the investigation had been politicized and that the continued protection afforded by the court’s earlier orders should not be diluted without a compelling basis.

Despite these assertions, the Supreme Court observed that interim protection cannot be treated as a shield against the due process of law, and directed that Rao must surrender before the Jubilee Hills Police Station by 11A.M. tomorrow, signalling a hardening of judicial approach toward protective relief in the backdrop of serious allegations.

The development marks a departure from the Court’s earlier stance in October, when it had extended Rao’s interim protection and taken exception to reports of external interference during his interrogation.

At that stage, the Bench, while extending protection, had also directed Rao to reset and furnish the password to his iCloud account in the presence of forensic experts, coming down sharply on alleged irregularities in investigation and obstruction in gathering digital evidence.

The Bench had admonished parties that judicial processes should not turn into a spectacle, especially over allegations of politicians and legislators being present during interrogations.

The earlier hearing also followed a disclosure by the Solicitor General that crucial forensic material had been unearthed from digital platforms related to the case, prompting the Court to adjourn to allow the State government to place the newly found evidence on record.

This forensic evidence, which reportedly contains critical data points on the alleged illegal surveillance and interception apparatus, forms the fulcrum of the prosecution’s argument against Rao and others involved in the operation.

Brief Background
Controversy at the heart of the case dates back to mid-2024, when the Telangana High Court suo motu took cognizance of widespread allegations that during the tenure of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) government, the Special Intelligence Bureau (SIB) under Rao had conducted large-scale phone tapping of political rivals, journalists, dissidents and even high court judges, in what was described as a grave breach of privacy and a matter of national security.

The present hearing on Thursday underscores the judiciary’s evolving concern over the balance between interim relief and accountability in high-profile criminal investigations.

By ordering Rao to surrender and signalling a readiness to reassess protective orders, the Bench has reinforced that interim legal shields must not impede critical investigative processes, especially where digital evidence and forensic leads are central to establishing culpability.

The court’s direction also reflects sensitivity to broader public interest and the fundamental right to privacy, which the case implicates squarely.

Significantly, the Top Court’s repeated emphasis on evidence preservation and cooperation comes against the backdrop of allegations that Rao, during the period of protective relief, may have formatted or altered electronic devices crucial to the case; While Rao’s counsel rejected such claims as unfounded, the Bench’s direction to ensure custody and cooperation signals a judicial intent to avoid potential obstruction in securing and examining digital evidence.

Case Title: T. Prabhakar Rao v. The State of Telangana

Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan

Date of Hearing: 11.12.2025