The Hindu : SC reserves verdict on interception of communication

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Apr 24, 2003

National

National

SC reserves verdict on interception of communication

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI April 23. The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict on an appeal filed by the Delhi Government challenging the Delhi High Court order holding that interception of telephonic communication would not be an admissible evidence under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) in the `December 13 Parliament attack case'.

A Bench, comprising Justice S.N. Variava and Justice Brijesh Kumar, reserved the verdict at the conclusion of arguments from senior counsel for the Delhi Police, Gopal Subramaniam and Shanthi Bhushan and Rajeev Dhavan, senior counsel for the accused — S.A.R. Geelani, Shaukat Hussain alias Guru, Mohd. Afzal and Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru.

Mr. Subramaniam reiterated that the High Court order was erroneous as it had failed to notice that Chapter 5 of the POTA applied only to transcripts which were obtained "pursuant" to that Chapter and prohibition under Sec. 45 applied only to transcripts collected under that Chapter.

He said intercepts made in pursuance of Chapter 5 of POTA were automatically admissible as relevant evidence unlike evidence of intercepts collected under the Telegraph Act wherein it was incumbent on the prosecution to prove relevancy and adhere to the tests laid down in the judgment in `Ram Singh's case'.

Mr. Shanti Bhushan and Mr. Rajeev Dhawan argued that as interception of telephonic conversations was not made under the provisions of POTA, the safeguard under this law was bypassed by police and hence the same could not be admissible as evidence under POTA.

The special court on July 11 last had held that intercepted conversation between accused Geelani, Hussain and his wife Afsan was an admissible evidence under POTA.

But on appeal from the accused, the Delhi High Court, by an order on October 30 last, rejected it and held that unless prior sanction was obtained for intercepting telephonic talks, the same could not be accepted for consideration while framing of charges.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National