AMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties for considerable time and have also perused the letter dated 21.10.2005 sent by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi to eight service providers seeking information about interception of telephone calls at the request of police (SIC) the order of the Designated Authority for which subsequent orders of the said authority have not been taken. Our attention has also been drawn to a Committee constituted by Delhi Government under order dated 6.02.2006 comprising of the Chief Secretary and Secretary, Law and Justice. The term of reference of the Inquiry Committee including calling for information from M/s. Reliance Infocom to ascertain the particulars of interception being done without orders of the designated competent authority i.e. Principal Secretary, Home, Government of N.C.T., Delhi. The learned Additional Solicitor General for want of record was unable to answer many of the queries sought for by this Court relevant to the aspect of interception/tapping of the telephones. Learned counsel has sought one week's time to file a detailed affidavit.

(2.) Similarly, we have asked certain questions from learned Solicitor General regarding the tapping of telephones under the authority of the Central Government for which too time is sought to file further affidavits. He has handed over a copy of fresh instructions dated 7.02.2006 issued for ensuring privacy of communication. Let the further affidavits be filed within two weeks and the matter posted for 20.03.2006.

(3.) Earlier, this Court had not issued notice to respondent Nos. 7-12. Insofar as respondent No. 7 is concerned, we are of the view that it has been unnecessarily impleaded. Respondent 8-12 are, however, authorized service providers. We issue notice to them returnable on 20.03.2006. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.