The Madras High Court on Wednesday held that the law does not allow for telephonic conversations or messages to be tapped for the purposes of covert operations aimed at crime detection.

The law permits phone tapping only in public emergencies or in the interest of public safety, the court said.

Justice N Anand Venkatesh was hearing a petition by P Kishore, the managing director of a company in Chennai named Everonn Education. The Central Bureau of Investigation had in 2011 filed a corruption case against three persons, including Kishore and an Income Tax official named Andasu Ravinder.

The agency alleged that the official demanded a bribe from the company to help it evade taxes, after which Kishore paid him Rs 50 lakh.

The Union home ministry had in August 2011 passed an order allowing Kishore’s mobile phone to be tapped. Kishore challenged the order before the High Court.

The court on Tuesday quashed the home ministry’s order, holding that phone tapping would violate the right to privacy unless it was authorised under a procedure established by law.

The home ministry had authorised the tapping of Kishore under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act.

However, the court noted that the provision only allows for the interception of telephones in public emergencies or in the interest of public safety.

When such a situation exists, the authorities may pass an order directing interception of messages “after recording satisfaction if it is necessary or expedient to do so in the interest of sovereignty or integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence”, the court said.

The judge noted that the case at hand was one involving a covert operation for detecting a crime.

“As the law presently stands, a situation of this nature does not fall within the four corners of Section 5(2) of the Act…” the court said.

The judge referred to a 1996 Supreme Court judgement on a petition filed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, in which the court laid down guidelines for telephone tapping. It also noted that these principles had been approved by the court in its 2017 judgement in the Puttaswamy versus Union of India case, in which it held that the right to privacy was a protected fundamental right under the Constitution.

The High Court on Wednesday also held that the authorities had contravened Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules by not placing the intercepted material before a review committee in time.

“As a consequence... the impugned order dated August 12, 2011, must necessarily be set aside as unconstitutional and one without jurisdiction,” Justice Venkatesh said.