Introduction
This research article looks at issues related to wiretapping and privacy rights. The prologue to this wiretapping is very limited, as it can only be done by showing a few reasonable reasons. The main areas of discussion are India's views on call recording, preventive measures to avoid interception of calls, the authenticity of intercepted conversations, new aspects of interception of calls, right to privacy and right to privacy related to interception of calls. This research mainly uses second-hand data collected from various books, national periodicals, government reports, newspapers, and different websites that focus on different aspects of phone locking and privacy. It can be concluded that the right to privacy will not be violated only when the telephone recording is made in the public interest or in any emergency situation. The right to intercept calls is restricted and cannot be done without permission from the government. This investigation will provide valuable information on wiretapping and privacy.
The history of wiretapping
"What we like most about communicating with others is the confidentiality seal and its content." Friedrich Nietzsche
The term "wiretapping" also means phone tapping or interception of the phone. It began in the United States in the 1890s after the invention of the telephone recorder. However, the United States Supreme Court did not become effective law until the height of the Prohibition Order in 1928. Roy Olmstead, a smuggler in Seattle, was found guilty based on evidence gathered by tapping the phone at his home. He then said authorities violated his basic rights, but the court upheld his conviction, saying that tapping someone's phone is not a physical invasion of privacy. Prior to the Pearl Harbour incident and subsequent US involvement in World War II, the US House of Representatives held a hearing on the legality of wiretapping for national defence. Some years before the Second World War there were important laws and judicial decisions on the effectiveness and constitutionality of wiretapping. On the contrary, it presents a new urgency during the national crisis. In the case, "Katz v. the United States"[1], the Supreme Court of the United States declared that the wiretapping required an arrest warrant. In 1978, the FISA [2] was enacted to issue wiretapping orders in national security cases.
The Indian perspective on wiretapping
Article 21 of the Constitution of India stipulates: "No one shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedures prescribed by law."
The term "personal liberty" includes the "right to privacy". Citizens have the right to protect personal privacy, as well as the privacy of the family, education, marriage, childbirth, childbirth, childbirth, etc.
"The right not to be disturbed" is the definition of "privacy" by Lewis D. Bradies in 1890. While it is moral and ethical for a person not to look out for the privacy of others, it is a sacred and inviolable constitutional obligation for the country. The state cannot secretly and selectively spy on information on political opponents like the infamous Watergate incident, nor can it collect materials and conduct investigations like prosecutors.
If this is done, unless the law so requires, the right to privacy, dignity and respect for life would be violated. Human rights recognize that a person’s privacy must be protected from infringement. When applying the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Frankfurt judge stated that infringement of privacy must be “condemned as incompatible with the concept of human rights recorded in history and basic constitutional documents”
Life and freedom are not empty words; they include all the necessary ingredients that give them meaning. According to our constitution, a person’s privacy is part of his life and freedom. Any violation of this essential basic right can only be carried out in accordance with constitutional restrictions.
Eavesdropping affects the right to privacy and freedom of speech, both of which are basic rights stipulated by the Constitution. Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects life and liberty, can only allow laws enacted by the legislature that meet the requirements of the Constitution and apply fair, just and reasonable procedures. In addition, the violation of the right to freedom of expression and expression is not allowed, except for art. It is stipulated in article 19 of the Constitution.
Privacy was briefly discussed in the recent Supreme Court ruling that “Justice K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr v/s Union of India & Ors” [3].
It is very important to distinguish that privacy was previously considered a “common right” before being briefly discussed in the Puttaswamy case. Regarding private life, the Supreme Court has stated that “Individual life and liberties are not a creation of the Constitution. These rights are recognized by the Constitution as inherent in each individual as an intrinsic and inseparable part of the living human factor. The right to privacy is a constitutionally protected right, arising mainly from the guarantee of individual life and liberties in Article 21 of the Constitution. In different contexts, elements of private life also flow from other aspects of freedom and dignity recognized and guaranteed by the fundamental rights in Part III.
Privacy mainly includes the protection of individual privacy, the sanctity of marriage and family life, the home, reproduction and sexual orientation. Privacy also includes the right to be left alone. Privacy protects an individual's autonomy and recognizes an individual's ability to control important aspects of their life. Personal choice for lifestyle is essential to privacy. Privacy protects heterogeneity and recognizes the diversity and richness of our culture. While legitimate expectations of privacy may vary from intimate to private and from private to public, it is important to stress that the right to privacy does not disappear or is lost altogether because the individual is found. in a public place. The right to privacy is closely linked to the human person because it is an essential aspect of human dignity.
Wiretapping refers to secretly listening to or recording on the phone to obtain information about the activities of others. In some countries (mainly the United States), it is also called "eavesdropping." Wiretapping can only be carried out officially with the permission of the appropriate department. However, if it is done informally and illegally, it is illegal and will lead to prosecution of those responsible for the violation of privacy.
In India, eavesdropping can only be conducted in an authorized manner if the permission of the relevant authority is obtained. However, if it is carried out in an unauthorized manner, it is illegal and will lead to the prosecution of the person responsible for the violation of privacy.
Telephones as well as other communication equipment are mentioned in Section 31 of Union List of Constitution of India and are based on Section 7 of Union List Act 1935 from the Indian government. take the necessary steps for the advancement of science in Section 7, List I, resulting in “Post and Telegraph; telephony, wireless, broadcasting and other similar forms of communication ”and Article 31, List I of the Constitution of India preserves entry, thus requiring the construction of“ telegraph ”at least to include telephony, wireless, dissemination, etc. arise. Central government as well as.
Solution
· Illegal blocking violates privacy and the aggrieved party can file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission.
· An FIR can be left at the nearest police station when the person notices an illegal phone interception.
Alternatively, the violated person can sue the person/company performing the unauthorized act under section 26(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act which provides a penalty of 3 years imprisonment for those detained hold for illegal interception. An individual can also be prosecuted for allowing the phone to be intercepted but explicitly sharing their data.
Conclusion
Privacy is one of the individual freedoms as stipulated in article 21 of the Indian Constitution. A person also has the right to protect his privacy. There are cases where the government must act against a person's basic rights. One of them is telephone interception. This is a very important government step and in order to block an individual's phone, it should be mentioned that there are reasonable grounds to take such a step as it is a private matter of someone. 'a. Telephone interception does not constitute a breach of privacy only if it is done in the public interest or in an emergency, as stated in section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act. Telephone interception cannot be performed in any case except the two cases mentioned above. Any evidence obtained by telephone interception does not constitute a breach of privacy and is also considered admissible evidence. Blocking a phone without government permission is a violation of one's privacy as a person can talk about their problems, children's education, health, etc. that she doesn't want to share with anyone else. The authority given to the authorities to block phones is not absolute. There are reasonable limitations attached to it. An individual's phone calls cannot be recorded unless and until there are reasonably proven grounds to commit such an act no one is deprived of their personal liberty. Therefore, phone recording does not constitute an infringement of privacy unless and until it is done in the public interest or in an emergency.
Such incidents of wiretapping must be taken seriously because such violations reduce the individual's constitutional and mocking rights and expose him to indignation and ridicule. Such invasions are undemocratic and uncivilized.
Endnotes:-
[1] 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
[2] Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
[3] (2017) 10 SCC 1, AIR 2017 SC 4161