The Chhattisgarh High Court has underscored the importance of privacy, labeling telephone wiretapping as a significant violation of the fundamental right to privacy protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court emphasized the necessity of adhering strictly to statutory procedures outlined in Section 20(2) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, when engaging in such activities.
A Division Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, delivered this ruling while nullifying a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) interception order. This order had been used to build a corruption case against Ravi Shankar Ji Maharaj, the chairperson of the Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (SRISMR) in Raipur. Despite this, the court chose not to dismiss the First Information Report (FIR) or the chargesheet filed against him.
The allegations against the petitioner involved a large-scale conspiracy with Health Ministry and National Medical Commission (NMC) officials, intermediaries, and private medical colleges. The conspiracy aimed to secure favorable inspection reports through bribery, ghost faculty, and fake patient schemes, with intercepted phone calls forming a substantial part of the evidence.
During the hearings, the court requested clarification from the Central Government regarding the compliance chain of the interception. An affidavit by the Secretary of the Department of Telecommunications indicated that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had issued a confirmation order on July 4, 2025, covering the period from June 1 to July 31, 2025, which began nearly a month before the original authorization was granted.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that this scenario revealed a critical jurisdictional flaw, as a confirmatory order cannot retrospectively authorize interception. The court concurred, stating, “The confirmation contemplated under Rule 3(3)(b) is confirmatory in character; it cannot create jurisdiction retrospectively.” The court stressed that compliance with interception safeguards must be absolute, not merely substantial.
More Read
Interestingly, the petitioner’s counsel had limited the relief sought, choosing not to pursue the quashing of the FIR or chargesheet, and expressing a willingness to face trial based on other evidence gathered during the investigation. The court accepted this position, setting aside the interception authorization, the MHA confirmation, and the review committee’s proceedings. It also directed the destruction of the intercepted material while allowing the trial to proceed with the remaining evidence.
Representing the petitioner were Senior Advocate Manu Sharma, assisted by Pankaj Pandey, Girish Tripathi, Abhuday Sharma, and Rahul Ambast. Advocate Vaibhav A Goverdhan represented the CBI, and Deputy Solicitor General Ramakant Mishra appeared for the Union of India.
[Read Order]
