JUDGMENT : A.V. SESHA SAI, J. These two Writ Appeals, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, call in question the order, dated 11.12.2006, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.2754 of 2006. 2. By way of the aforesaid order, dated 11.12.2006, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order bearing No.14/3/97-CBI, dated 17.11.2003, passed by the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi – respondent No.1 in the writ petition. 3. By way of the order, dated 17.11.2003, respondent No.1 in the writ petition directed interception of the telephone messages to and from mobile No.98-484-61953 belonging to the writ petitioner. 4. Heard Sri N. Harinath, learned Deputy Solicitor General for Union of India, appearing for the appellant in W.A. No.161 of 2007 and respondent No.2 in W.A. No.70 of 2007, and Sri B. Adi Narayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P. Kamalakar, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner, apart from perusing the material available on record. 5. Sri N. Harinath, learned Deputy Solicitor General, contends that the order passed by the learned single Judge is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short, “the Act”) and the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 (for short, “the Rules”); that the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act and Rule 419-A of the Rules enable and empower the Union of India to issue the order for interception of messages to and from the telephones; that the order of interception came to be issued by assigning valid reasons and by recording satisfaction, as such, the findings of the learned single Judge in the order under challenge in these appeals are neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law and that necessary ingredients of Section 5(2) of the Act do exist in the case on hand, as such, the order of interception cannot be faulted. 6. 6. On the contrary, strongly and emphatically resisting the writ appeals, Sri B. Adi Narayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P. Kamalakar, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner, contends that there is absolutely no error nor there exists any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge, as such, the order passed in the writ petition warrants no interference of this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent; that as the contingency for invoking the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act and Rule 419-A of the Rules is conspicuously absent, the order of interception cannot stand for judicial scrutiny. In support of his submissions and contentions, learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the following judgments:- 1) A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court 348, 2) A.I.R. 1999 Supreme Court 2378, 3) A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 568 and 4) 2020 (1) A.I.R. Bom.R (Cri)1. 7. In the above background, now the issues, which this Court is called upon to consider and resolve in these appeals, are as under:- “1) Whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge, setting aside the order of interception passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, is sustainable and tenable? and 2) Whether the order passed by the learned single Judge warrants any interference of this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent?” 8. For the purpose of answering the above issues and for proper adjudication, this Court deems it appropriate and apposite to refer to the order of interception, dated 17.11.2003, and the relevant provisions of law. The order of interception reads as follows:- “TOP SECRET No.14/3/97-CBI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (Government of India) ORDER Whereas as per provision in sub-rule (1) of Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 notified on 16.2.1999 as Indian Telegraph (First Amendment) Rules, 1999 framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885), the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, has been authorised to exercise powers of the Central Government under sub-Section (2) of Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885). 2. 2. Now, therefore, I, Union Home Secretary, being satisfied that it is necessary/expedient so to do in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India/the security of the State/friendly relations with foreign states/public order/preventing incitement to the Commission of an offence hereby direct that any telephone message relating to clandestine contact/movement/activity etc. to and from 98-484-61953, brought for transmission by or transmitted shall be intercepted and disclosed to the Director, CBI. 3. I am further satisfied that it is necessary to monitor this Telephone as the information cannot be acquired through any other reasonable means. 4. This order shall remain in force for a period not exceeding 30 days from the date of issue. Sd/- (N. Gopalaswami) Secretary to the Govt. of India Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. New Delhi, Dated: 17/11/2003.” 9. Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 reads as under:- “5. Power for Government to take possession of licensed telegraphs and to order interception of messages.— (1) On the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the Central Government or a State Government, or any officer specially authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government, may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, take temporary possession (for so long as the public emergency exists or the interest of the public safety requires the taking of such action) of any telegraph established, maintained or worked by any person licensed under this Act. (2) On the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the Central Government or a State Government or any officer specially authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence, for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct that any message or class of messages to or from any person or class of persons, or relating to any particular subject, brought for transmission by or transmitted or received by any telegraph, shall not be transmitted, or shall be intercepted or detained, or shall be disclosed to the Government making the order or an officer thereof mentioned in the order: Provided that the press messages intended to be published in India of correspondents accredited to the Central Government or a State Government shall not be intercepted or detained, unless their transmission has been prohibited under this sub-section.]” 10. Rule 419-A of the Rules reads in the following manner:- “419-A. (1) Directions for interception of any message or class of messages under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) shall not be issued except by an order made by the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs in case of Government of India and by the Secretary to the State Government in charge of the Home Department in the case of a State Government. In emergent cases, such order may be made by an officer, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, who has been duly authorized by the Union Home Secretary or the State Home Secretary, as the case may be. Such order shall contain reasons for such direction. In emergent cases, such order may be made by an officer, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, who has been duly authorized by the Union Home Secretary or the State Home Secretary, as the case may be. Such order shall contain reasons for such direction. A copy of such order shall be forwarded to the concerned Review Committee within a period of seven days; Provided that in emergent cases— (i) in remote areas, where obtaining of prior directions for interception of messages or class of messages is not feasible; or (ii) for operational reasons, where obtaining of prior directions for interception of message or class of messages is not feasible the officer concerned may carry out the required interception of messages or class of messages subject to its confirmation from the concerned competent officer within a period of fifteen days. (2) While issuing directions under sub-rule (1) the officer shall consider possibility of acquiring the necessary information by other means and the directions under sub-rule (1) shall be issued only when it is not possible to acquire the information by any other reasonable means. (3) The interception directed shall be the interception of any message or class of messages as are sent to or from any person or class of persons or relating to any particular subject whether such message or class of messages are received with one or more addresses, specified in the order, being an address or addresses likely to be used for the transmission of communications from or to one particular person specified or described in the order or one particular set of premises specified or described in the order. (4) The directions shall specify the name and designation of the officer or the authority to whom the intercepted message or class of messages is to be disclosed and also specify that the use of intercepted message or class of messages shall be subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act and the copies of the intercepted message or class of messages shall be destroyed when no longer required. (5) The directions for interception shall remain in force, unless revoked earlier, for a period not exceeding ninety days from the date of issue and may be renewed but the same shall not remain in force beyond a total period of one hundred and eighty days. (6) The officer issuing the directions for interception shall also make a request in writing to the Telegraph Authority who shall extend the facilities and co-operation for interception mentioned in the directions. (7) The officer authorized to intercept any message or class of messages shall maintain proper records mentioning therein, the intercepted message or class of messages, the particulars of persons whose message has been intercepted, the name and other particulars of the officer or the authority to whom the intercepted message or class of messages has been disclosed, the number of copies of the intercepted message or class of messages made and the mode or the method by which such copies are made, the date of destruction of the copies and the duration within which the directions remain in force. (8) The Central Government and the State Government, as the case may be, shall constitute a Review Committee. The Review Committee to be constituted by the Central Government shall consist of the following, namely: (a) Cabinet Secretary — Chairman (b) Secretary to the Government of India In-charge, — Member Legal Affairs (c) Secretary to the Government of India, [Department — Member of Telecommunications Services, Ministry of Communications] The Review Committee to be constituted by a State Government shall consist of the following, namely:- (a) Chief Secretary — Chairman (b) Secretary Law/Legal Remembrancer — Member (c) Secretary to the State Government (other than the — Member Home Secretary) (9) The Review Committee within a period of sixty days from the issue of the directions shall suo moto make necessary enquiries and investigations and record its findings whether the directions issued under sub-rule (1) are in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act. When the Review Committee is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions referred to above, it may set aside the directions and order for destruction of the copies of the intercepted message or class of messages.” 11. When the Review Committee is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions referred to above, it may set aside the directions and order for destruction of the copies of the intercepted message or class of messages.” 11. While referring to sub-Section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, learned Deputy Solicitor General attempts to justify the action impugned in the writ petition under the contingencies, namely Sovereignty and Integrity of India, the security of the State and prevention of incitement to the commission of offence. 12. In order to consider the sustainability of the said justification, it would be highly essential to refer to charge sheet No.2/2005, dated 19.09.2005, laid by the Inspector of Police, C.B.I/ACU-V/New Delhi, wherein the writ petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.2. Para Nos.19 and 20 of the charge sheet, which are the essence of the charge, read as under:- “19. That the hand washes of Smt. K.L.D. Nagasree (A2), Miss. Upparapalli Devi and washes of bed sheet and table cloth as mentioned above were sent to Central Forensic Scientific Laboratory (VFSL) for chemical examination regarding presence of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate in the washes (solutions). The CFSL Report confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein powder in the solution of sodium carbonate in all the said washes (solution). 20. From the material collected during the investigation, statement of witnesses and the facts and circumstances of the case, it is convincingly established that Shri A.Sudhakar Rao (A-1) being a public servant entered into criminal conspiracy with Smt. K.L.D. Nagasree (A-2) who in turn colluded with Smt. Laxmi Rambabu (A-3) and in pursuance of said criminal conspiracy Shri A.Sudhakar Rao (A-1) agreed to accept a sum of Rs.10 lakhs through Smt. K.L.D. Nagasree (A-2) as gratification, other than legal remuneration from Shri M.F.Showry as a motive or reward for not registering a case of Disproportionate Assets against him (Shri M.F.Showry). Further, Smt. K.L.D. Nagasree (A-2) accepted Rs.5 lakhs as first installment of the said amount for herself and on behalf of Shri A.Sudhakar Rao (A-1) who by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant directed Shri M.F.Showry to deliver the bribe money (Rs.5 lakhs) to Smt. K.L.D.Nagasree (A-2). Further, Smt. K.L.D. Nagasree (A-2) accepted Rs.5 lakhs as first installment of the said amount for herself and on behalf of Shri A.Sudhakar Rao (A-1) who by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant directed Shri M.F.Showry to deliver the bribe money (Rs.5 lakhs) to Smt. K.L.D.Nagasree (A-2). Smt. Laxmi Ram Babu (A-3) was acting in conspiracy with Smt K.L.D. Nagasree (A-2) and was persuading Shri M.F.Showry for making payment of illegal gratification to Smt K.L.D.Nagasree.” 13. The tenor of the above paragraphs does not attract anyone of the contingencies under Section 5(2) of the Act and on the other hand, the allegations in the charge sheet pertain to receipt of illegal gratification, which reads as under:- “That on 10th November, 2003, Smt K.L.D. Nagasree (A-2) informed Shri Ram Sudhakar that after considerable deliberation with Shri A.Sudhakar Rao (A-1), the demand had been reduced to Rs.10 lakhs, but the first instalment of Rs.5 lakhs should be paid immediately. She also impressed that a sum of Rs.50,000/- would be her fees in the said matter.” 14. Another crucial aspect, which needs to be taken note of, is that as per Section 5(2) of the Act, it is obligatory and mandatory on the part of the competent authority to record the reasons in the order of interception but in the case on hand, the reality remains that respondent No.1 in the writ petition failed to record any reasons in the order of interception except extracting the language employed in the statutory provision of law, and by any stretch of imagination, the same cannot be construed as strict compliance of the mandatory requirement of recording the reasons. Any amount of explanation in the form of counter affidavit for sustaining the impugned order of interception is of no consequence and renders no assistance to the case of the appellant. 15. Another crucial aspect which needs consideration is – “whether the authorities scrupulously adhered to Rule 419-A of the Rules?” 16. Any amount of explanation in the form of counter affidavit for sustaining the impugned order of interception is of no consequence and renders no assistance to the case of the appellant. 15. Another crucial aspect which needs consideration is – “whether the authorities scrupulously adhered to Rule 419-A of the Rules?” 16. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 419-A of the Rules empowers the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs in case of Government of India and by the Secretary to the State Government in-charge of the Home Department in the case of a State Government may make an order and in emergent cases, such order may be made by an officer, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, who has been duly authorised by the Union Home Secretary or the State Home Secretary, as the case may be. According to sub-rule (5) of Rule 419-A of the Rules, the directions for interception shall remain in force, unless revoked earlier, for a period not exceeding 90 days from the date of issue and it can be renewed but the same shall not remain in force beyond a total period of 180 days. 17. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 419-A of the Rules obligates the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, (in the instant case, it is Central Government), to constitute a Review Committee. The Review Committee to be constituted by the Central Government under this sub-rule consists of the following:- a) Cabinet Secretary - Chairman, b) Secretary to Government of India In-charge, Legal Affairs – Member and c) Secretary to Government of India (Department of Telecommunication Services, Ministry of communications) - Member. 18. According to sub-rule (9) of Rule 419-A of the Rules, the Review Committee, within a period of sixty days from the issue of the directions, shall suo moto make necessary enquiries and investigations and record its findings as to whether the directions issued under sub-rule (1) are in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act. When the Review Committee is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions referred to above, it may set aside the directions and order for destruction of the copies of the intercepted message or class of messages. When the Review Committee is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions referred to above, it may set aside the directions and order for destruction of the copies of the intercepted message or class of messages. This entire exercise is required to be completed by the Review Committee within a period of 60 days from the date of the order of interception. In the instant case, there is absolutely no material on record placed by the authorities to demonstrate that they have complied with the above provisions of law. 19. In this context, it may also be apposite to refer to Section 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which reads as under:- “Penalty for breach of confidentiality and privacy:- Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, if any person who, in pursuance of any of the powers conferred under this Act, rules or regulations made there under, has secured access to any electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material without the consent of the person concerned discloses such electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material to any other person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both….” 20. Since the provisions of the enactment and the Rules enable the authorities to look into the privacy of the citizens in deviation/relaxation to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, strict and scrupulous adherence to the provisions of law and Rules is mandatory and any deviation to the said Rules would, undoubtedly, render the action unsustainable. 21. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order of interception passed by the Central Government, having regard to the reasons recorded supra, cannot sustain in the eye of law. In fact, the learned single Judge, by assigning cogent and convincing reasons, allowed the writ petition. 22. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgments cited by Sri B. Adi Narayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri P. Kamalakar, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner. 23. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India and another’s case (3 cited supra), it is held at para Nos.28 to 30 as under:- “28. 23. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India and another’s case (3 cited supra), it is held at para Nos.28 to 30 as under:- “28. Section 5(2) of the Act permits the interception of messages in accordance with the provisions of the said Section. "Occurrence of any public emergency" or "in the interest of public safety" are the sine qua non for the application of the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act. Unless a public emergency has occurred or the interest of public safety demands, the authorities have no jurisdiction to exercise the powers under the said Section. Public emergency would mean the prevailing of a sudden condition or state of affairs affecting the people at large calling for immediate action. The expression "public safety" means the state or condition of freedom from danger or risk for the people at large. When either of these two conditions are not in existence, the Central Government or a State Government or the authorised officer cannot resort to telephone tapping even though there is satisfaction that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India etc. In other words, even if the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India or the security of the State or friendly relations with sovereign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence, it cannot intercept the messages or resort to telephone tapping unless a public emergency has occurred or the interest of public safety or the existence of the interest of public safety requires. Neither the occurrence of public emergency nor the interest of public safety are secretive conditions or situations. Either of the situations would be apparent to a reasonable person. 29. The first step under Section 5(2) of the Act, therefore, is the occurrence of any public emergency of the existence of a public safety interest. Neither the occurrence of public emergency nor the interest of public safety are secretive conditions or situations. Either of the situations would be apparent to a reasonable person. 29. The first step under Section 5(2) of the Act, therefore, is the occurrence of any public emergency of the existence of a public safety interest. Thereafter the competent authority under Section 5(2) of the Act is empowered to pass an order of interception after recording its satisfaction that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of (i) sovereignty and integrity of India, (ii) the security of the State, (iii) friendly relations with foreign States, (iv) public order, or (v) for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence. When any of the five situations mentioned above to the satisfaction of the competent authority require then the said authority may pass the order for interception of messages by recording reasons in writing for doing so. 30. The above analysis of Section 5(2) of the Act shows that so far the power to intercept messages/conversations is concerned the Section clearly lays down the situations/conditions under which it can be exercised. But the substantive law as laid down in Section 5(2) of the Act must have procedural backing so that the exercise of power is fair and reasonable. The said procedure itself must be just, fair and reasonable. It has been settled by this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCR 621 : ( AIR 1978 SC 597 ), that "procedure which deals with the modalities of regulating, restricting or even rejecting a fundamental right falling within Article 21 has to be fair, not foolish, carefully designed to effectuate, not to subvert, the substantive right itself". Thus, understood, "procedure" must rule out anything arbitrary, freakish or bizarre. A valuable constitutional right can be canalised only by civilised processes". 24. In Vinit Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Mumbai and another (4 cited supra), it is held at para Nos.1 and 12 as under:- “1. Thus, understood, "procedure" must rule out anything arbitrary, freakish or bizarre. A valuable constitutional right can be canalised only by civilised processes". 24. In Vinit Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Mumbai and another (4 cited supra), it is held at para Nos.1 and 12 as under:- “1. The petitioner has impugned before us the orders dated 29th October, 2009, 18th December, 2009 and 24th February, 2010, which directed interception of telephone calls by respondent No.2 on the ground of being ultra vires of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short "the Act"), non compliance of Rules made thereunder, and for being in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's case is that they ought to be quashed and intercepted messages obtained thereunder shall be destroyed as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties (for short "the PUCL") v. Union of India [ (1997) 1 SCC 301 ] and as provided in Rule 419A(17) introduced by G.S.R.193 of 1st March, 2007 (w.e.f. 12th March, 2007). The petitioner is also relying on a Nine Judge Constitution Bench judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India [ (2017) 10 SCC 1 ] for seeking enforcement of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 12. In view of the aforesaid clear and emphatic pronunciation of law on the subject by the Nine Judge Constitution Bench in K. S. Puttaswami (supra), it is no longer res-integra that :- (a) The right to privacy is recognised by the Nine Judge Bench as inherent fundamental right having protection as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedom guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution which is subject to specified restrictions; (b) Any infringement of the right to privacy by State Authorities will have to meet the following four tests based on the "Principle of proportionality and legitimacy" : 1. The action must be sanctioned by law; 2. The proposed action must be necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim; 3. The extent of such interference must be proportionate to the need for such interference; 4. There must be procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference. (c) All earlier judgments suggesting to the contrary, are no longer binding precedents. The proposed action must be necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim; 3. The extent of such interference must be proportionate to the need for such interference; 4. There must be procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference. (c) All earlier judgments suggesting to the contrary, are no longer binding precedents. The matters of infraction of the fundamental right to privacy would now have to necessarily satisfy the aforesaid tests, and cannot be dealt with on the basis of the overruled judgments in M.P.Sharma (supra) or Kharak Singh (supra) or based thereon or on the same line of reasoning like R. M. Malkani (supra).” 25. In view of the law laid down in the above referred judgments and the reasons recorded and observations made in the above paragraphs, this Court does not find any merit in the appeals and this Court is not inclined to meddle with the well articulated order passed by the learned single Judge. 26. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these Writ Appeals shall stand closed.