HYDERABAD: Additional Solicitor General of India Mr Natarajan, while supporting the action of the Telangana state government, submitted that the Union of India Acts, under Section 5(2) of Indian Telegraph Act and the relevant provisions, empowered the government to take possession of licensed telegraphs and to order interception of messages.
He said that the state of Telangana had sought the opinion of the Centre before intercepting certain telephone conversations and the entire correspondence regarding the interception were privileged documents and could not be disclosed or forced to be disclosed even before a court of law.
AP Advocate-General P. Venugopal reminded the court that the telecom companies had been directed by the Supreme Court to place the material before the Vijayawada court in a sealed envelope.
The Chief Metropol-itan Magistrate’s Court, Vijayawada, on July 17, in another order, had directed the telecom service providers not to destroy the required material and data in respect to telephone numbers specified in the notices and original letters of interception of emergency and regular monitoring by the agencies, namely IGP (Intelligence), IGP (Counter Intelligence cell), IGP (SIB) pertaining to Telangana state etc.
The lower court had passed the orders based on applications moved by the SIT which was constituted by the AP government to probe a case registered on the complaint of AP irrigatino minister Devineni Uma Maheswara Rao alleging that TRS leaders were intercepting the telephone calls of AP Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu and his Cabinet colleagues in Hyderabad.
Aggrieved by the orders of the lower court, the Telangana state government had moved the High Court contending that the Telangana state government was not party before the court at Vijayawada and passing an order without being heard was illegal.
The registry of the HC listed the petitions before the judge with an objection of maintainability of the petitions. Advocate-general of TS, K. Ramakrishna Reddy submitted that when a court passed an order without giving an opportunity to being heard, the affected party had the right to move the HC, which had power to entertain such petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
He said that interception of certain phone conversations was done in accordance with law and the lower court had no right to call for the records when the interception was done as per law in the interest of security and safety of the government and the public.
When the judge agreed to hear the matter, Mr Ram Jethmalani , senior counsel of the Supreme Court, appearing for the Telangana state government submitted that the action of the lower court caused infringement of rights of the state government and the Supreme Court had already held that whenever rights were infringed, the affected parties had the right to move the High Court.
He said that orders of the lower court were not only illegal and without jurisdiction, but also in breach of the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act and Section 123, 124 and 131 of the Indian Evidence Act.
He said that the proceedings before the lower court were going on based on rumours of alleged phone tapping without there being any concrete proof and such proceedings were liable to be quashed.
Centre supports TS in HC
Return call records to HC
While refuting the contentions of Mr Venugopal, the judge held that the petitions were maintainable and directed the lower court to return to the call records to the registrar of the High Court without opening the sealed cover whenever it received the same from the service providers.
While adjourning the case for four weeks, the judge directed the lower court not to proceed further in the case.
