What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
The recent controversy surrounding phone tapping allegations in Kerala has brought the issue of surveillance laws in India into sharp focus. Accusations by MLA P.V. Anvar against Additional Director General of Police M.R. Ajith Kumar of unauthorized phone tapping involving ministers, journalists, and other officials have raised significant concerns about the misuse of power and the adequacy of legal safeguards for citizens’ privacy. In response, Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan has sought a detailed report from Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and called for an investigation into these serious allegations.
India’s surveillance laws are primarily governed by the Indian Telegraph Act, of 1885, and the Information Technology Act, of 2000, which permit phone tapping under specific circumstances, such as national security or public safety, with authorization from a competent authority. However, the lack of transparency and accountability in the implementation of these laws often results in misuse. The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India, established guidelines aimed at preventing arbitrary phone tapping, mandating that such actions must be authorized by the Home Secretary at the central or state level and reviewed by a high-level committee. Despite these safeguards, unauthorized surveillance incidents continue to emerge, indicating systemic flaws.
The phone-tapping allegations in Kerala highlight the urgent need for reform in India’s surveillance framework. There must be greater transparency in the authorization process, as the current system allows senior police officials to authorize phone tapping without government consent for up to seven days, which is prone to abuse. Introducing judicial oversight could ensure that surveillance is conducted only when necessary and respects citizens’ privacy rights. Additionally, there should be stricter penalties for unauthorized surveillance; the existing legal provisions are insufficient to deter misuse. Strengthening the legal framework to impose harsher penalties on those guilty of unauthorized phone tapping would act as a significant deterrent.
Regular audits and public disclosures of surveillance activities are also crucial to enhancing accountability and building public trust. Establishing an independent oversight body to monitor surveillance activities and address privacy violation grievances could further improve the system.
