A public interest writ petition challenging a mobile operator's call recording service as a violation of the right to privacy was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to take suitable steps on 16.09.2021.
Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty granted to take suitable steps.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 25TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 13038 OF 2018
PETITIONER/S:
BEJOY SATHEESH AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.SRI.R.SATHEESAN, 301, NORTH FORT GARDEN, THRIPUNITHURA-682301, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. BY ADVS. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR SRI.T.H.ARAVIND SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SRI.G.RENJITH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE MINISTRY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL SECRETARY (INTERNAL SECRETARY) 3 TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA MAHANAGAR DOORSANCHAR BHAVAN, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI-110001. 4 IDEA CELLULAR LTD. CORPORATE OFFICE, 10TH FLOOR, THE BIRLA CENTURION, PLOT NO.794, B WING, PANDURANG BUDHKAR MARG, WORLI, MUMBAI400030, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SMT.C.G.PREETHA, CGC FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA SMT.MARIA ROY SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW FOR R4 SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -2-
J U D G M E N T
S. Manikumar, C. J.
Instant public interest writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
“i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate steps to prevent the 4th respondent from recording private conversations.
ii) To declare that the action of the 4th respondent in recording private conversations is illegal and in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and other citizens of India.”
hereunder:-
According to the petitioner, present writ petition is moved in public interest, seeking to highlight a grave violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens of India, whose right to privacy is grossly violated at the instance of a major mobile network provider.
Petitioner has contended that Idea Cellular Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Mumbai, the 4th respondent, has come up with a service of “call recording”, by which the said service provider can
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -3-
record all calls to the customer at its premises and sent it to such customers. The call recording service could be done until now only for the specific reasons and on the grounds stated in the decision reported in 1997 (1) SCC 301.
Petitioner has further contended that the State has framed rules also in this regard. Now, in flagrant violation of those rules and the principles laid down by the Apex Court, the 4th respondent has now floated a call recording service, which has potential to intrude into the valuable right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution, and declared recently authoritatively by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Right to Privacy case.
Petitioner has also contended that unless this Court intervenes in the matter and passes appropriate orders or directions, a serious breach to privacy of citizens of India in violation of the existing norms and guidelines issued by the government of India to mobile network providers, would take place.
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -4-
“3. It is submitted that TRAI is a statutory body set up under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (24 of 1997), inter alia, to regulate telecom services and to protect the interests of service providers and consumers of telecom sector, etc. The recommendatory, regulatory and tariff functions of TRAI are set out in Section 11 of TRAI Act, 1997.
Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Mumbai, the 4th respondent, has merged with Vodafone India Ltd. Statement has been filed by the 4th respondent, explaining the merger, as well as the grant of permission, to have the conversation recorded between the stake
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -5-
holders. Relevant paragraphs of the same are reproduced hereunder:-
“9. It is submitted that in view of the rise in the number of disputes and litigations against banks for engaging recovery agents in the recent past, RBI issued a guideline on 24-04-2008 making it mandatory for Banks to ensure that there is a recording of the content/text of the calls made by recovery agents to the customers, and vice-versa. This has not been challenged by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition.
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -6-
recording is usually done with the help of a call logger with every analogue/digital telephone line and the call logs (voice files) are transferred on to the central server on a periodic basis. Due to the vast spread operations of EBHs across the country and the number of lines that are in use, they face many challenges like capturing proper Caller Line Identification, unable to manage recording etc. Therefore, secure call recording solutions are provided to Banks, Equity Broking Houses, Insurance companies etc. The same solution can be extended to various enterprises across industry verticals in compliance with the regulatory provisions. Call Recording Server (CRS) is hosted at the Master Switching Centre locations which will act as call logger and recording servers. All the calls originated and terminated from CRS activated subscribers are routed through CRS for recording purpose. Service Agreement will be signed between Vodafone Idea Ltd and all the enterprise customers stating that recordings are being stored and shared with third party service provider making it clear that liability lies with Enterprise Customer.
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -7-
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -8-
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -9-
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -10-
guidelines issued by the IRDA dated 05.04.2011, mandating call recording, which is reproduced:-
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -11-
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -12-
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -13-
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -14-
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -15-
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -16-
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -17-
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -18-
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -19-
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -20-
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -21-
dated 26.07.2017, mandating call recording, which is reproduced:-
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -22-
Placing on record the above, writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn. Liberty as prayed for is granted.
Sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE
Eb
///TRUE COPY///
P. A. TO JUDGE
W.P.(C) No. 13038 of 2018 -23-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13038/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1TRUE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE CALL RECORDING SOLUTION LAUNCHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26/03/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE MAIL RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should issue directions to telecom regulators and Idea Cellular Ltd. to prevent the recording of private conversations by a mobile network provider without regulatory authority.
Bejoy Satheesh
The Ministry of Telecommunications, Government of India
The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
Idea Cellular Ltd. (now Vodafone Idea Ltd.)
S. Manikumar
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
