Case Brief: Amar Singh v Union of India and Ors.

FACTS:
The Petitioner learnt from the information provided by various sources that the Government of India and the Government of National Capital Region of Delhi, being pressurized by the Respondent No. 7, Indian National Congress, had been intercepting the Petitioner’s conversation on phone, monitoring them and recording them.
And hence this writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 32 so as to protect his fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THE RESPONDENTS:
The Union of India and the National Capital Territory of Delhi denied the allegations by contending that said orders annexed to the petition are fabricated with forged signatures and they are not genuine. Further, it was submitted that the Principal Secretary (Home) in the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi is authorized by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi to exercise powers to order interception of phone conversation for a period specified in such orders in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It was also added that the deponent specifically stated that no order for interception of the Petitioner’s number was ever issued.
HELD:
The Hon’ble Court held the case to be based on unreliable facts. The casual manner in which the Petitioner approached the Court and the absence of disclosure of required information in the affidavit, which was filed along with the petition, raises a prima facie impression that the writ petition was based on treacherous facts, observed the Court.
The Petitioner, also, largely relied on information received from an accused in a criminal case while he filed his petition under Article 32. It therefore appeared to the Hon’ble Court that the Petitioner has been shifting his stand to suit his convenience.
RATIO:
“Court shall protect right to privacy of individual only in accordance with constitutional privileges.”