Point out law and procedure for monitoring, interception of phones: Delhi HC to Centre
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Tuesday allowed the Central government to file a detailed affidavit on a PIL alleging generalised surveillance of the citizens by the authorities and sought details of procedure in relation to
the monitoring and interception of phones.
Time to file detailed affidavit granted to Union of India. Point out in detail the law and procedure followed by the Union of India for monitoring and interception of phones, said a bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh which listed the matter for next hearing on September 30.
The bench was hearing a PIL by two societies which have claimed that citizens' right to privacy was being "endangered" by surveillance programmes like the Centralised Monitoring System (CMS), Network Traffic Analysis (NETRA) and National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID).
The plea by Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC) has contended that these surveillance systems allow central and state law enforcement agencies to intercept and monitor all telecommunications in bulk which is an infringement of the fundamental right to privacy of individuals.
Appearing for the NGOs, advocate Prashant Bhushan urged the court to constitute a committee under the aegis of a retired judge of the high court or the Supreme Court to find out what the government was doing and that the government reply in the present case was bald .
They filed an affidavit saying everything is in accordance with law. Government's reply is a bald reply, he stated.
He also submitted that the issue of alleged targeted surveillance by Pegasus software was pending consideration before the apex court and that the issue in the instant petition was more than that of phone tapping. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asserted that all monitoring activities were being carried out as per the law and with requisite permissions.
This is not a public interest issue. I will look into it and file an affidavit. Whatever we find to be significant (in the petition), we will reply. Other things, we will ignore, he told the court.
