New Delhi: The Supreme Court expressed serious concern Monday over the Chhattisgarh government tapping the phone of a senior IPS officer – and allegedly also of his two daughters – and wondered if ‘somebody’s privacy can be violated like this’.
“No privacy is left for anybody. What is happening in this country?” the top court observed.
It asked the state government to find out who ordered for interception of the phones of the senior police officer Mukesh Gupta and his family members and directed it to file a detailed affidavit explaining the reason for the action.
During the previous hearing in the case October 25, Mukesh Gupta had alleged that his and his two young daughters’ phones were being intercepted.
The Chhattisgarh government had admitted that Gupta’s phone was being tapped as he has been evading arrest in two cases lodged against him. The government had denied intercepting the officer’s daughters’ phone though.
The court had then restrained the Chhattisgarh government from intercepting the phones of Gupta and his family and granted him protection from arrest in the cases lodged against him.
During the hearing Monday, a bench of justices Arun Mishra and Indira Banerjee asked the Chhattisgarh government if an individual’s phone can be intercepted just to trace him.
“Everyday something is happening. What is the need of this? No privacy is left for anybody. What is happening in this country,” the bench said, adding, “Can privacy of somebody be violated like this? Who ordered this? File a detailed affidavit.
The top court also took exception to a separate FIR lodged against an advocate who is representing the IPS officer before the apex court.
Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Gupta, informed the bench that the Chhattisgarh police had come to arrest his client and his lawyer Ravi Sharma called up the police to know under which FIR he was being arrested.
The bench said that the lawyer, as an officer of the court, has every right to know from the police that under which FIR or provisions of law, his client was being arrested.
It stayed any further investigation against the lawyer and said that no coercive action be taken against him till further orders.
PTI