The Delhi High Court has ruled that interception of phone calls is legally permissible in cases of large-scale corruption, marking a significant interpretation of public safety within India’s surveillance framework. In Aakash Deep Chouhan v. CBI (June 26, 2025), the Court upheld a CBI order intercepting calls related to a ₹2,150 crore government redevelopment project, finding the measure consistent with statutory and constitutional safeguards.
Defining “Public Safety” to Include Economic Threats
Justice Kamaldeep Kaur observed that corruption—especially involving senior public servants and massive economic stakes—poses a threat to national welfare, and thus satisfies the “public safety” threshold under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885. The judgment emphasises that this category is not limited to physical danger, but extends to hidden, systemic harms that could compromise public trust and resource allocation.
A key passage reads: “The threat posed by corruption cannot be understated… threatening the economic safety of the country”. Hence, interception orders in such circumstances are lawful, so long as the legal procedures under the Act and the Telegraph Rules are followed.
Algoritha: The Most Trusted Name in BFSI Investigations and DFIR Services
Balancing Privacy With Investigative Powers
The Court stressed that wiretapping powers are not unfettered. They hinge on explicit conditions: a public emergency or a demonstrable interest in public safety. A mere routine crime investigation does not justify the intrusion. In a parallel decision in Santosh Kumar v. Union of India, the Court upheld interception when the order referenced public safety, national security, and incitement—but added that reasons must be specific and not boilerplate.
Further, earlier rulings—such as those in Jatinder Pal Singh—warned that evidence obtained without a valid interception order violates fundamental rights and must be discarded. The Court reaffirmed that any use of illegally obtained communications would be “manifest arbitrariness” and unacceptable.
About the Author – Anirudh Mittal is a B.Sc. LL.B. (Hons.) student at National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, with a keen interest in corporate law and tech-driven legal change