International E-publication: Publish Projects, Dissertation, Theses, Books, Souvenir, Conference Proceeding with ISBN.  International E-Bulletin: Information/News regarding: Academics and Research

A Critical Analysis on Telephone Tapping Conversation

Author Affiliations

  • 1Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Visakhapatnam, INDIA

Res. J. Computer & IT Sci., Volume 1, Issue (6), Pages 1-6, November,20 (2013)

Abstract

In India, one side the technology is growing up as well as the crime rate also growing up concurrently by committing the cyber crimes. The judiciary has itself has given the liberty to the informants with regard to tapping of calls. Even though the conversation has recorded illegally and without consent of any of party, that evidence is permitting the court as evidence. Under Constitution of India, the every citizen has the right to live in dignity and privacy. The government and courts are not considering about privacy when the conversation recorded without consent of the person. It seems that the government and judiciary itself encouraging indirectly to informant to commit the crime. The Legislative members have enacted Information Technology Act with regard to prohibition of unauthorized recording and procedure of tapping the conversations. But the court has not decided any cases on the provisions of Information Technology Act with regard to infringement of privacy and prohibition of tapping calls by informant.

References

  1. People‘S Union For Civilliberties (Pucl) v The Union ofIndia And Another 1996 Indlaw SC 1508 (1996)
  2. Section 3 (a) of Indian Evidence Act,1872, it says that, (a)in the definition of "Evidence", for the words "alldocuments produced for the inspection of the Court", theword "all document including electronic records producedfor the inspection of the Court" shall be substituted; (1872)
  3. K.L.D. Nagasree vs Government of India, AIR 2007 AP102 (2007)
  4. State v Ravi Alias Munna, 1999 Indlaw DEL 159 (1999)
  5. Recording Phone Calls and Conversation by Digital MediaLaw Project, August 15th, 2012 (2012)
  6. Privacy: Wiretap Act, Section 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) (1968)
  7. Robert B. Gilbreath and Curtis L. Cukjati, Tape Recordingof Conversations: Ethics, Legality and Admissibility(1996)
  8. Section 3 of IT Act, 2008, it speaks that, Authentication ofElectronic Records - (1) Subject to the provisions of thissection any subscriber may authenticate an electronic recordby affixing his Digital Signature. (2) The authentication of theelectronic record shall be effected by the use of asymmetriccrypto system and hash function which envelop and transformthe initial electronic record into another electronic record,(2008)
  9. Section 4of IT Act, 2008: Legal Recognition of ElectronicRecords. -Where any law provides that information or anyother matter shall be in writing or in the typewritten or printedform, then, notwithstanding anything contained in such law,such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied ifsuch information or matter is - (a) Rendered or made availablein an electronic form; and (b) accessible so as to be usable fora subsequent reference (2008)
  10. Section 11 of IT Act, 2008, it speaks that, Attribution ofElectronic Records (2008)
  11. Section 13 of IT Act, 2008, it speaks that,. Time and place ofdispatch and receipt of electronic record, (2008)
  12. Deepak Miglani, Relevancy and Admissibility of TapeRecord Statement, (2012)
  13. Section 7 of Evidence Act, 1872, (1872)
  14. R.M. Malkani vs State of Maharashtra, 1973 AIR 157,(1972)
  15. Yusufalli Esmail Nagree vs The State of Maharashtra,1968 AIR 147, (1968)
  16. Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari vs Brijmohan RamdassMehra and Ors,1975 AIR 1778, (1975)
  17. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) vs Navjot Sandhu
  18. Yusufalli Esmail Nagree vs The State of Maharashtra,1968 AIR 147, (1968)
  19. S. Pratap Singh vs The State Of Punjab, 1964 AIR 72,(1964)
  20. R. Venkatesan vs State, 1980 Cr LJ 41, (1980)
  21. Rayala M. Bhuvaneswari v Nagaphanender Rayala, AIR2008 AP 98, (2008)
  22. Mahabir Prasad Verma v Surinder Kaur, 1982 Indlaw SC180, (1982)
  23. State v Ravi Alias Munna, 1999 Indlaw DEL 159, (1999)
  24. S.C. Goel v State (Through CBI), 2011 Indlaw DEL 358,(2011)
  25. Rayala M. Bhuvaneswari vs Nagaphanender Rayala, AIR2008 AP 98, (2008)
  26. K.K. Velusamy v N. Palanisamy, 2011 Indlaw SC 200,(2011)
  27. Ram Singh 1985 (S) SCC 611, (1985)
  28. R.K. Anand, (2) I. U. Khan v Registrar, Delhi High Court,2009 Indlaw SC 920, (2009)
  29. R vs. Stevenson, [1971] 1 W.L.R., 1(1971)
  30. State of Maharashtra vs Prakash Vishnurao Mane, (1977)79 BOMLR 217, (1977)
  31. Regina v. Maqsud Ali, S.C. [1965] 2 All E.R. 464, (1965)
  32. People‘S Union For Civilliberties (Pucl) v The Union OfIndia And Another, 1996 Indlaw SC 1508, (1996)
  33. K.L.D. Nagasree v Government of India, Represented ByIts Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi andOthers, 2006 Indlaw AP 201(2006)
  34. Mahabir Prasad Verma v Surinder Kaur, 1982 Indlaw SC180, (1982)
  35. Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v Brijmohan RamdassMehra and Ors, 1975 Indlaw SC 179, (1975)
  36. P. Mohan v M.K. Azhagiri, 2013 Indlaw MAD 638,(2013)
  37. Shri N. Sri Rama Reddy Etc vs Shri V.V. Giri, 1971 AIR1162, (1971)
  38. ABC v Commissioner of Police and others, 2013 IndlawDEL 237, (2013)
  39. 39., , Rakesh Bisht v Central Bureau of Investigation ,2007Indlaw DEL 1811, (2007)
  40. State of Bombay v Kathi Kalu Oghad and Others, 1961Indlaw SC 144, (1961)
  41. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi v AbdulKarim Ladsab Telgi and Others, 2004 Indlaw MUM 319,(2004)
  42. A.R. Periyasamy v G. Karunakaran, 2008 Indlaw MAD4380, (2008)
  43. Rup Chand V. Mahabir Parshad and another, 1956 Punjab173, (1956)
  44. Rakesh Bisht v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2007Indlaw DEL 1811, (2007)
  45. M Varaprasada Rao vs Cbi on 23 July, 2010, (2010)
  46. S.I Ram Manohar vs Delhi Police on 11 July, 2013, (2013)
  47. Section 66of IT Act 2008: 66-E. Punishment for violation ofprivacy.-Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures,publishes or transmits the image of a private area of anyperson without his or her consent, under circumstancesviolating the privacy of that person, shall be punished withimprisonment which may extend to three years or with finenot exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both, (2008)
  48. Sec 72 of IT Act 2008. It speaks about, Penalty for breach ofconfidentiality and privacy, (2008)