Telephone Interception Cannot Be Retrospectively Validated By MHA Confirmation Order: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a confirmation order issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs under the Telecommunications (Procedure and Safeguards for Lawful Interception of Messages) Rules, 2024 is only confirmatory in nature and cannot retrospectively validate or enlarge the scope of an interception authorisation.
The Court observed that Telephone interception is an exception to the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, the statutory conditions authorising such intrusion must receive strict construction.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal was hearing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a case involving FIR based on information, alleging a large-scale conspiracy involving Ministry of Health & Family Welfare officials, NMC members, intermediaries and private medical colleges for leaking inspection details and securing favourable reports through bribes. The petitioner challenged the interception authorisation dated June 28, 2025. It was pointed out that the authorisation sought to validate interception for a period when no authorisation existed.
The Court noted that once the State seeks to justify an invasion into an individual's private communications by invoking statutory powers of interception, strict compliance with the constitutional and statutory safeguards becomes indispensable. It held that the competent authority under Section 5(2) of the Telecommunication Act is empowered to pass an order of interception only on the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety.
“Not only the satisfaction of the authority as to the occurrence of public emergency or the existence of public safety interest is absent, but even the satisfaction expressed with regard to the other situations enumerated under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act does not stand the legal scrutiny,” the Court remarked.
Regarding interception, the Court held that if the original authorisation came into existence only on June 28, 2025, the subsequent confirmation could not legally operate for a period commencing twenty-seven days earlier. It held that the confirmation contemplated under Rule 3(3)(b) is confirmatory in character and cannot create jurisdiction retrospectively or enlarge the scope of an authorisation already granted.
“… the interception authorisation itself came into existence only on 28.06.2025. If that be so, the statutory confirmation issued on 04.07.2025 could not legally operate in respect of a period commencing on 01.06.2025, i.e., twenty-seven days prior to the very existence of the original authorization,” the Court remarked.
The Court further held that neither the Ministry of Home Affairs nor the Review Committee could retrospectively validate interception. It observed:
“The existence of a lawful authorisation by the Competent Authority is a jurisdictional fact. Unless such jurisdictional fact exists on the relevant date, neither the Ministry of Home Affairs nor the Review Committee can retrospectively validate interception for an anterior period.”
Applying these principles, the Court held that the interception authorisation dated June 28, 2025, the consequential order dated July 4, 2025 and the Review Committee proceedings dated September 15, 2025, insofar as they related to the interception under challenge, could not be sustained in law and were liable to be set aside.
However, the Court declined to quash the FIR, charge-sheet and criminal proceedings, noting that the investigation is not founded exclusively upon the intercepted conversations.
Case Title: Shri Ravi Shankar Ji Maharaj v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. [CRMP No. 1504 of 2026]