IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION)

Writ Petition (Civil) No. of 2018

IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

IN THE MATTER OF: -

Sh.Sarthak Chaturvedi …Petitioner

VERSUS

Union of India &Anr. .…Respondents

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO FRAME
GUIDELINES REGARDING TRACING, TAPPING AND
SURVEILLANCE OF PHONE CALLS AND CONSTITUTION OF
SPECIAL INVESTIGATING TEAM FOR INVESTIGATING
ABUSE OF POWERS BY SOME PUBLIC SERVANTS OF
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

To,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI THE

HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The Petitioner is filing the present writ petition as a

responsible citizen of India and for the benefit of public at large

being aggrieved by the illegal acts of abuse of powers by public

servants for their ulterior motive as detailed herein belowand

absence of adequate and comprehensive guidelines regarding

phone tapping and surveillance. Although, there is a policy in

place, however, it is not comprehensive and bestows uncontrolled

and unaccountable powers in the hands of public servants. The

present case is a classic example of abuse of powers by public

servants. The petitioner has no personal interest in the litigation

and the present petition is not guided by any self gain or gain of

any other person, institution or body and there is no motive other

than public interest in filing the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner, an Advocate practicing in all tiers of judiciary

and is a social worker always working for the benefit of the general

public, especially the people belonging to the lower starta of the

society.The present petition is being filed for the benefit of the

Nation at large keeping in view the National Security and

Intelligence.The petitioner has always been trying to make people

take recourse to the honest means in life for achieving their goals

in life and for the purpose of inculcating the feeling of honesty and

truth.

3. The present petition has been filed against two Respondents

and to the best of the understanding only they are going to be

effected and no other department/bodies are going to be effected

by the orders sought in the Writ petition.

4. The petitioner is a Law graduate and as stated earlier is

practicing law in all tiers of judiciary. The petitioner has the means

to paythe costs, if any, imposed by the Hon’bleCourt and also

undertakes to pay the same in the event any cost is imposed upon

the petitioner.

5. Respondent No.1 is Union of India, responsible for the

safety, security and welfare of nation and it’s citizen. Respondent

No.2, a premier investigative agency in the country today, with a

dual responsibility to investigate grievous cases and provide

leadership and direction in fighting corruption to the Police force

across the country.

6. The issue involved in this writ petition is that of security and

integrity of nation, privacy of individual and framing of guidelines

qua tracing, tapping and surveillance of phone calls which directly

and indirectly affects the security and intelligence of the nation at

large.

7. Factual Matrix

7.1. The Central Bureau of Investigation, constituted under Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, is an apex institution in

the country to investigate matters involving corruption and such

other matters as may be entrusted to it by judicial

pronouncements or by Central or State government(s). The public

servants working in said organization need to conduct themselves

in a manner so that integrity of the institution is maintained. The

facts disclosed herein reflect the abuse of powers by some public

servants working in Central Bureau of Investigation for their

ulterior motives thereby necessitating framing of comprehensive

guidelines qua phone tapping and surveillance.

7.2. At the relevant time, Sh.Alok Kumar Verma, IPS, was

Director of respondent no.2. Amongst others, two branches

relevant for adjudication were firstly, Special Investigation Team

headed by Sh.Rakesh Kumar Asthana, IPS, working in respondent

no.2 as Special Director and secondly AC Zone, which registered

the case against Rakesh Kumar Asthana and Policy Decision,

which controlled and involved in technical surveillance and phone

tapping headed by Sh.A.K.Sharma, IPS. The unit involved in

Phone Tapping and technical surveillance in respondent no.2 is

known as Special Unit(SU) and it is headed by a D.I.G rank official.

At the relevant time, said unit was headed by Sh. RakeshRathi,

IPS, DIG, Special Unit. Mr. RakeshRathi reported to

Sh.A.K.Sharma, Head of AC Zone and Policy Division and

eventually to Sh.Alok Kumar Verma, Director, CBI. Another official

namely Sh.ManishSinha IPS, was also DIG and was head of the

branch of AC-III, New Delhi who also reported to Sh. A K Sharma,

AC Zone.

7.3. On 15.10.2018, respondent no.2, Central Bureau Of

Investigation, upon receiving a written complaint filed by

Mr.SathishBabu Sana registered an F.I.R bearing

no.13(A)/2018/AC-III/New Delhi , under Section 7& 13(2) Read

With Section 13(1)(d) & Section 7A of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 2018 read with Section 120B Annexure-A, against

Sh.RakeshAsthana,Spl. Director, CBI, New Delhi, Sh.Devender

Kumar, Dy. SP, SIT, CBI, New Delhi, Sh.Manoj Prasad, Sh.Somesh
Prasad and other unknown persons. The FIR was registered

alleging commission of offence under various provisions by

accused persons named therein while investigating

RC22420117A0001 being investigated by Sh.Devender Kumar,

DSP CBI who belonged to branch/team headed by Sh.Rakesh

Kumar Asthana. The F.I.R bearing no.13(A)/2018/AC-III/New

Delhi was registered by Sh.S.S.Gurm, SP, AC-III, CBI, a branch

headed by Sh.ManishSinha. The investigation of said FIR was

handed over to Sh.A.K.Bassi, DSP, AC-III, CBI.

7.4. After the registration of aforesaid FIR, Sh.RakeshAsthana

also filed complaints alleging corruption against Sh.Alok Kumar

Verma before the CVC/Cabinet Secretary. These incidents

revealed interse disputes between top officials of respondent no.2.

These incidents damaged the integrity and reputation of

respondent no.2 in the National and International domain as India

contesting election for delegate in INTERPOL had to withdraw

itself. The respondent no.1, in order to protect the integrity of the

institution and to enable fairinvestigation into allegations leveled

by different officials, on 23.10.2018, sent Sh.Alok Kumar Verma

and Sh.Rakesh Kumar Asthana on leave and appointed

Sh.M.NageshwarRao, IPSas interim Director, CBI. The other

officials such as Sh.A.K.Sharma, Sh.ManishSinha, Sh.S.S.Gurm

and Sh.A.K.Bassi were transferred to different branches/units or

jurisdictions outside Delhi.

7.5. On 23.10.2018, Sh.RakeshAsthana, Spl. Director, CBI, New

Delhi, by way of W.P.(Crl) No.3248/2018, titled as Rakesh

KumarAsthana Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, approached

the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi seeking quashing of FIR bearing

no.13(A) registered against him by respondent no.2.

7.6. On 26.10.2018, Sh.Alok Kumar Verma, Director,CBI, New

Delhi, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by filing

Writ Petition (Civil) No.1309/2018, titled as Alok Kumar Verma Vs.

Union of India &Anr., thereby assailing the decision of respondent

no.1 sending him on leave pending enquiries by CVC.

7.7. On 30.10.2018, Sh.ManishSinha, DIG, CBI, New Delhi, who

was head of AC-III investigating FIR registered against Sh. Rakesh

Kumar Asthana and transferred to Nagpur filed two interim

application seeking intervention Annexure-B and for issuance of

appropriate directions before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

Writ Petition (Civil) No.1309/2018, titled as Alok Kumar Verma Vs.

Union of India &Anr.,wherein several crucial facts qua an

undergoing investigation in RC22420117A0001 was disclosed

which ought to have been kept confidential. The perusal of

application reveals commission of cognizable offence of abuse of

powers by public servants. Similarly, Sh.S.S.Gurm and

Sh.A.K.Bassi had also filed applications in the same petition before

the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

7.8. Although, Sh.S.S.Gurm was transferred outside Delhi and

was no more in AC-III, CBI, New Delhi, on 31.10.2018, he filed

an application seeking impleadment in W.P.(Crl) No.3248/2018,

titled as Rakesh KumarAsthana Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation.Similarly, Sh. A K Bassi, DSP, CBIand

Sh.A.K.Sharma also filed application in said matter despite the

fact that they were no more concerned with said case as they

stood transferred. This reveals that they worked as a syndicate

for achieving their ulterior motive.

7.9. The application filed by Sh.Manish Sinha before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India was made public on a website being run

and maintained in the name and style of www.barbench.com.

7.10. The perusal of application filed by Sh.ManishSinha reveal

following facts:

a. During investigation of FIR dt.15.10.2018, an accused

Sh.Manoj Prasad was intercepted by CBI at Delhi Airport and was

brought to headquarters at New Delhi.

b. The phone numbers of Sh.Manoj Prasad and Sh.Somesh

Prasad was under technical surveillance by DIG, SU, CBI.

It requires investigation whether any permission was

obtained as per rules?

c. The Special Unit had placed many numbers on technical

surveillance and was analyzing call data records. It was informed

that immediately after the news broke out on arrest of Sh.Manoj

Prasad, Sh.Somesh Prasad, made immediate calls to

Sh.SamantGoel, who made calls to Sh.RakeshAsthana. There

were four calls between Somesh and SamantGoel and four calls

between SamantGoel and RakeshAsthana by 17.10.2018

afternoon. Therewas also a call between

Sh.DineshwarPrasad(father of Somesh Prasad and Manoj Prasad)

with Sh.SamantGoel, Special Secretary, RAW.

It establishes thatmobile numbers of Sh. Manoj, Sh. Somesh, Sh.

Samant, Sh. Dineshwar and Sh.RakeshAsthana, were intercepted

illegally by Sh. RakeshRathi, DIG, SU.

d. On 17.10.2018, the Director CBI briefed Sh.AjitDoval, NSA

and informed him that Sh.RakeshAsthana’s name is cited in the

FIR. Subsequently on the same night, it was informed by Special

Unit to Sh.ManishSinha that NSA has informed Sh.RakeshAsthana

about registration of FIR. It was informed that Sh.RakeshAsthana

reportedly made a request to NSA that he should not be arrested.

How did Special unitlearnt this? Did they illegally intercept calls of

NSA and Sh. RakeshAsthana?

e. In the afternoon of 20.10.2018, searches were also

conducted at the residence and office of Sh.Devender Kumar,

Dy.SP, CBI who was investigating the case of MoinQureshi. The

reasons for the search was based on certain inputs provided by

Special Unit based on legal interception.

f. DIG-SU shared that the technical inputs received by CBI was

solely because Sh.Somesh was talking very freely on normal

mobile channel which is vulnerable to interception and that

Sh.SamantGoel was also talking freely with Sh.Somesh Prasad on

mobile. It was discussed that this may peril and hurt our National

Security and Interest.

g. On 23.10.2018, Sh.ManishSinha was informed by DIG,

Special Unit that someone then at Chandigarh had spoken to

Sh.SamantGoel and sought his help, to which Sh.SamantGoel had

responded that things have been managed with Prime Minister’s

Office. The same night entire investigating team was transferred.

h. Additionally, Sh.ManishSinha became aware of the fact that

during the pendency of the investigation going in CVC against

Sh.Alok Kumar Verma, the Union Law Secretary waded into the

issue. On 08.11.2018 the office of Sh.Sana was repeatedly

approached by Ms.Rekha Rani IAS, Andhra Pradesh Cadre,

claiming that Union Law Secretary, who was in London wanted to

speak to him. The number was also communicated to him.

i. Sh.Sana spoke to him on 08.11.2018. The Union Law

Secretary Sh.Suresh Chandra said that he was in London then in

reference to NiravModi case and that he was trying to get in

contact with him for last 4-5 days in order to convey the message

of Cabinet Secretary Sh.P.K.Sinha that Union Government would

offer full protection to him and there would be drastic changes on

13.11.2018 and that Mr.Sana should meet Mr.Suresh Chandra on

14.11.2018 and IB is unable to trace the movement of Mr.Sana.

It was further told to him that the message was also sent though

Mr.ChamundeshwarNath with whom Mr.Sana met in London. The

call was disconnected by Mr.Sana promising to call him back later

that night.

It is submitted that Law Secretary has stated as reported in

media that he was not in London on 08.11.2018. Further, the

phone of Law Secretary was also Tapped and put under

surveillance.

j. On 13.11.2018, Sh.SureshChadra enquired with Ms.Rekha

and asked her presence on Mr.Sana. Ms.Rekha disclosed to

Mr.Sana that she has been told by Sh.Suresh Chandra that all his

future problems would be taken care of and that he should come

to Delhi on 15-16.11.2018.

7.11. The aforementioned facts evidently disclose series of events

from which it is apparent that respondent no.1 being capacity of

farming polices and guidelines has till date not formulated

stringent policy or action plan or guidelines to deal with the

menace of tracing, tapping and surveillance of phone calls being

done by respondent no.2 or any such other public offices, which

directly and indirectly effects the national security and intelligence

which inturn is going to put the lives and security of nation and

it’s citizen thereto at peril.

7.12. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the Respondent Nos. 1 in

failing to take any action to formulate strict guidelines against the

illegal tracing, tapping and surveillance of phone calls, the

Petitioner is filing the present petition.

7.13. It is humbly submitted that petitioner is in no manner

affected or connected with the any of the undergoing

investigations as has been stated in the preceding paragraphs.

However, the facts disclosed by Sh.ManishSinha in his interim

application makes it apparent that the manner in which the

powers is being misused illegally by the government officers raises

great concern over National Security and Intelligence and privacy

of individuals which would directly affect the sovereignty of nation

and safety of it’s citizen.

8. GROUNDS

8.1. The submissions made by Sh. Manish Sinha in his

application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reveal

facts/circumstances warranting a comprehensive policy on the

subject of technical surveillance by agencies. It is submitted that

powers conferred upon public servants/agencies authorized for

technical surveillance is essential for national security and

interest. But, uncontrolled and unaccountable powers may

prejudice the same national security sought to be protected. The

aforesaid facts reveal violation of privacy and

unaccountable/abuse and misuse of powers. It is submitted that

records of calls made can be analyzed by Call Data Reocrds(CDR)

but contents of call can only be ascertained upon technical

surveillance. As in present case, the DIG, SU was able to provide

input to other officials including Sh. Alok Kumar Verma and Sh. A

K Sharma on the basis of technical surveillance only. These

officials had formed a syndicate to pursue their ulterior motives.

This fact is also evident from the fact that despite transfers instead

of only challenging their transfer orders, Sh. A K Sharma, Sh. S

SGurm and Sh. A K Bassi in individual capacities filed application

in the W.P.(Crl) No.3248/2018, titled as Rakesh KumarAsthana

Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. This conduct of these public

servants reveal two features. Firstly, it was an act unbecoming of

public servant and secondly, they had formed a syndicate to

malign the organization as well as the nation for achieving their

goals. It is also submitted that agencies authorized for technical

surveillance use partial phone tapping records and have no

obligation under the law to report back to an authority as to what

has been done with details intercepted by them for which they had

obtained permissions. This vaccum in the policy bestows upon

public servants uncontrolled and unaccountable powers to abuse

and misuse the interception for purposes other than for which

permission was obtained. The competent authority should take

stock of all interception for definite period to avoid misuse and to

ascertain usefulness of interception. This will ensure

accountability.

8.2 Section 5(2), The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, lays down an

eventuality and circumstances in which the tracing, tapping and

surveillance of phone calls and messages are governed in India.

The law is amply clear that a message or phone call should be put

on surveillance or interception only in case of public emergency or

in the interest of public safety with prior sanction of Government.

The interception of calls is permitted only in following cases:

(i) The sovereignty and integrity of India.

(ii) The security of the State.

(iii) Friendly relations with foreign states.

(iv) Public order.

(v) For preventing incitement to the commission of an offence.

No such situation had arisen in the present case so as to intercept

calls immediately. The only object was to achieve their ulterior

motive or conflict between two top officials.

8.3. Situations and facts as detailed out in the interim application

filed on behalf Sh.ManishSinha does not disclose even an iota of

either the public emergency or public safety. However, on the

other hand it is quite evident from the facts so disclosed in the

application that phone calls of officers holding the elite posts in

Central Bureau of Investigation were being monitored with eagles’

eye to closely keep a watch and monitor their every movement

and interaction for personal and private benefits.

8.4. It is quite evident from the facts being disclosed in the

interim application that as the case of public emergency or public

safety never arose, thus a prior sanction from Government could

not have arisen. Thus, interception of a phone call without prior

sanction from appropriate authority and without any rhyme or

reason as detailed out in The Indian Telegraphs Act is perverse,

illegal, unethical and is gross abuse of powers.

8.5. As per the mandate, in case of interception, taping, tracing

and surveillance, a complete official record has to be maintained

for such numbers. Every minute details qua such surveillance has

to be periodically entered into such register, which in the present

case and in normal course of business is never done as such

interception and surveillance is being done illegally and beyond

the sanctioned powers to authorities. Pursuant to such regular

feeds the sanctioning authority has to be regularly informed about

every development and outcome of such surveillance.

8.6. As per the mandate the surveillance of a phone call has to

be carried on continuously for 180 days. Subsequent thereto, a

fresh sanction has to be obtained from appropriate authority. In

the present case just to shun the people illegally gain out of it the

calls were intercepted without any prior sanction.

8.7. Union of India despite being empowered under Section

7(2)(b) till date has miserably failed to frame guidelines and

policies governing sensitive issue involving interception of calls.

8.8. The right to hold a telephone conversation in the privacy of

one's home or office without interference is "right to privacy".

Conversations on the telephone are often of an intimate and

confidential character. Telephone-conversation is a part of modern

man's life. It is considered so important that more and more

people are carrying mobile telephone instruments in their pockets.

Telephone conversation is an important facet of a man's private

life. Right to privacy would certainly include telephone-

conversation in the privacy of one's home or office. Telephone-

tapping would, thus, infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India

unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law.

8.9. Right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed

under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This freedom means

the right to express one's convictions and opinions freely by word

of mouth, writing, printing, picture, or in any other manner. When

a person is talking on telephone, he is exercising his right to

freedom of speech and expression. Telephone-tapping unless it

comes within the grounds of restrictions under Article 19(2) would

infract Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Therefore, no

unaccountable power can be conferred upon any official/agency.

8.10. As a preliminary step to the exercise of jurisdiction under

the Government or the authority concerned must record its

satisfaction as to existence of such an emergency. Further, the

existence of the emergency which is a pre-requisite for the

exercise of power, must be a public emergency and not any other

kind of emergency. The expression 'public emergency has not

been defined in the The Indian Telegraph Act, but contours

broadly delineating its scope and features are discernible from the

section which as to be read as a whole. In Section 5(1) the phrase

'occurrence of any public emergency is connected with and is

immediately followed by the phrase "or in the interests of the

public safety". These two phrases appear to take colour from each

other. In the first part of Sub-section (2) those two phrases again

occur in association with each other, and the context further

clarifies with amplification that a 'public emergency within the

contemplation of this section is one which raises problems

concerning the interest of the public safety, the sovereignty and

integrity or India, the security of the State, friendly relations with

foreign States of public order or the prevention of incitement to

the commission of an offence. It is in the context of these matters

that the appropriate authority has to form an opinion with regard

to the occurrence of a 'public emergency" with a view to taking

further action under this section.

8.11. Section 5(2) of The Telegraphs Act permits the interception

of messages and calls 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.

8.12. 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.

8.13. In the absence of just and fair procedure for regulating the

exercise of power under Section 5(2) of the Act, it is not possible

to safeguard the rights of the citizens guaranteed under Articles

19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

8.14. Tapping of telephones is a serious invasion of privacy. It is

a variety of technological eavesdropping. Conversations on the

telephone are often of an intimate and confidential character. The

relevant statue, i.e., Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, a piece of

ancient legislation, does not concern itself with tapping. Tapping

cannot be regarded as a tort because the law as it stands today

does not know of any general right to privacy.

8.15. Only way to safeguard the right of privacy of an individual

is that there should be prior judicial scrutiny before any order for

telephone-tapping is passed under Section 5(2) of the Act. The

judicial scrutiny alone would take away the apprehension of

arbitrariness or unreasonableness of the action. it is not possible

to provide for prior judicial scrutiny as a procedural safeguard. It

is for the Central Government to make rules under Section 7 of

the Act. Rule 7(2)(b) specifically provides that the Central

Government may make rules laying down the precautions to be

taken for preventing the improper interception or disclosure of

messages. The Actwas enacted in the year 1885. The power to

make rules under Section 7 of the Act has been there for over a

century but the Central Government has not thought it proper to

frame the necessary rules despite severe criticism of the manner

in which the power under Section 5(2) has been exercised. It is

entirely for the Central Government to make rules on the subject

but till the time it is done the right to privacy of an individual has

to be safeguarded. In order to rule-out arbitrariness in the

exercise of power under Section 5(2) of the Act and till the time

the Central Government lays down just, fair and reasonable

procedure under Section 7(2)(b) of the Act, it is necessary to lay

down procedural safeguards for the exercise of power

under Section 5(2) of the Act so that the right to privacy of a

person is protected.
8.17. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in People's Union for Civil

Liberties v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 568 in paragraph 35

observed “We, therefore, order and direct as under:

1. An order for telephone-tapping in terms of Section 5(2) of the

Act shall not be issued except by the Home Secretary,

Government of India (Central Government) and Home Secretaries

of the State Governments. In an urgent case the power may be

delegated to an officer of the Home Department of the

Government of India and the State Governments not below the

rank of Joint Secretary. Copy of the order shall be sent to the

Review Committee concerned within one week of the passing of

the order.

2. The order shall require the person to whom it is addressed to

intercept in the course of their transmission by means a public

telecommunication system, such communications as are

described in the order. The order may also require the person to

whom it is addressed to disclose the intercepted material to such

persons and in such manner as are described in the order.

3. The matters to be taken into account in considering whether an

order is necessary under Section 5(2) of the Act shall include

whether the information which is considered necessary to acquire

could reasonably be acquired by other means.

4. The interception required under Section 5(2) of the Act shall be

the interception of such communications as are sent to or from

one or more addresses, specified in the order, being an address

or addresses likely to be used for the transmission of

communications to or from, from one particular person specified

or described in the order or one particular set of premises specified

or described in the order.

5. The order under Section 5(2) of the Act shall, unless renewed,

cease to have effect at the end of the period of two months from

the date of issue. The authority which issued the order may, at.

any time before the end of two month period renew the order if it

considers that it is necessary to continue the order in terms

of Section 5(2) of the Act. The total period for the operation of the

order shall not exceed six months.

6. The authority which issued the order shall maintain the

following records:

(a) the intercepted communications,

(b) the extent to which the material is disclosed,

(c) the number of persons and their identity to whom any of the

material is disclosed.

(d) the extent to which the material is copied and

(e) the number of copies made of any of the material.

7. The use of the intercepted material shall be limited to the

minimum that is necessary in terms of Section 5(2) of the Act.

8. Each copy made of any of the intercepted material shall be

destroyed as soon as its retention is no longer necessary in terms

of Section 5(2) of the Act.

9.There shall be a Review Committee consisting of Cabinet

Secretary, the Law Secretary and the Secretary,

Telecommunication at the level of the Central Government. The

Review Committee at the State level shall consist of Chief

Secretary, Law Secretary and another member, other than the

Home Secretary, appointed by the State Government.

(a) The Committee shall on its own, within two months of the

passing of the order by the authority concerned, investigate

whether there is or has been a relevant order under Section

5(2) of the Act. Where there is or has been an order whether there

has been any contravention of the provisions of Section 5(2) of

the Act.

(b) If on an investigation the Committee concludes that there has

been a contravention of the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act,

it shall set aside the order under scrutiny of the Committee. It

shall further direct the destruction of the copies of the intercepted

material.

(c) If on investigation, the Committee comes to the conclusion

that there has been no contravention of the provisions of Section

5(2) of the Act, it shall record the finding to that effect.”

9. The petitioner has not filed any other petition against the

respondents of any other organization or department

involvingpresent issue of tracing, tapping and surveillance of

phone callsraised in this petition either before this Hon’ble court

or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

10. The Petitioner has no effective, efficacious or alternative

remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court for protection of its

rights which are sought to be violated by the Respondents.

11. That the present petition is being filed in the interests of

justice and not to delay any proceedings.

PRAYER

In the premises, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court

be pleased to:

a.) Direct respondent no.1, Union of India to frame

comprehensive guidelines regarding tracing, tapping and

surveillance of phone calls along with preparation of stocks

and accountability of officials and

b.) Constitute Special Investigating Team or Direct Union of

India to investigate abuse of powers by some public

servants of Central Bureau of Investigation for having

committed an offence of illegally intercepting phone calls of

individuals without following due process of law and by

abusing and misusingpowers by a public servant for their

ulterior motives, and

c.) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

present case.

PETITIONER

THROUGH

AMIT TIWARI, ANKIT ANANDRAJ SHAH, ADARSH VARMA

ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER,
D-21, LOWER GROUND FLOOR,
DELHI-110014
MOB:8527271621, 9910955904
EMAIL:tiwariamit2215@gmail.com
NEW DELHI
DATED: ______, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION)

Writ Petition (Civil) No. of 2018

IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sarthak Chaturvedi .... Petitioner

VERSUS
Union of India &Anr. .... Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Sarthak Chaturvedi, aged about 34 years, S/o Dr. Murari Lal

Chaturvedi, R/oP-1202, Jaipuria Sunrise Greens,

Indirapuramghaziabad, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as

under:

1) That I am the petitioner in the above named petition.

2) I have filed the present petition as Public Interest Litigation.

3) I have gone through the Delhi High Court (Public Interest

Litigation) Rules, 2010 and do hereby affirm that the

present Public Interest Litigation is in conformity thereof.

4) I have no personal interest in the litigation and neither

myself nor anybody in whom I am petitioner is interested

would in any manner benefit from the relief sought in the

present litigation save as member of general public. The

petition is not guided by any selfgain or gain of any person,

institution, body and there is no other motive than public

interest in filing this present petition.

5) I have done whatsoever enquiry/investigation which was in

my power to do, to collect all data/material which was

available and which was relevant for this court to entertain

the present petition. I further confirm that I have not

concealed in the present petition any data/information

which may enabled this court to form any opinion whether

to entertain this petition or not and/or whether to grant any

relief or not.

6) That the contents of the accompanying petition have been

drafted under my instructions and it has been explained to

me in my vernacular language and I approve of the same to

be true and correct.

 7) That the annexures filed along with the present application

are true copies of their respective originals.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified on solemn affirmation at New Delhi on this ___ day

of December, 2018, that the contents of the foregoing affidavit

are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and no part of it

is false and nothing material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION)

Writ Petition (Civil) No. of 2018

IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sarthak Chaturvedi .... Petitioner

VERSUS
Union of India &Anr. .... Respondents

URGENT APPLICATION
To,
Deputy Registrar,
High Court of Delhi,
New Delhi.
Sir,
 Will you kindly treat the accompanying petition as
urgent in accordance with rules and procedure as applicable in
High Court of Delhi.
The grounds of urgency are: -
The present petition is qua National Security and
Intelligence.

PETITIONER

THROUGH

AMIT TIWARI, ANKIT ANANDRAJ SHAH, ADARSH VARMA

ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER,
D-21, LOWER GROUND FLOOR,
DELHI-110014
MOB:8527271621, 9910955904
EMAIL:tiwariamit2215@gmail.com
NEW DELHI
DATED: ______, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION)

Writ Petition (Civil) No. of 2018

IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sarthak Chaturvedi .... Petitioner

VERSUS
Union of India & Anr. .... Respondents

FRESH NOTICE OF MOTION

Sir,
 Please take notice of motion in the above mentioned matter

which is likely to be listed for admission on ____.2019 or

thereafter.

PETITIONER

THROUGH

AMIT TIWARI, ANKIT ANANDRAJ SHAH, ADARSH VARMA

ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER,
D-21, LOWER GROUND FLOOR,
DELHI-110014
MOB:8527271621, 9910955904
EMAIL:tiwariamit2215@gmail.com
NEW DELHI
DATED: ______, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION)

Writ Petition (Civil) No. of 2018

IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sarthak Chaturvedi .... Petitioner

VERSUS
Union of India &Anr. .... Respondents

MEMO OF PARTIES

IN THE MATTER OF: -

 Sh.Sarthak Chaturvedi
S/o Dr. Murari Lal Chaturvedi
R/o P-1202, Jaipuria Sunrise Greens
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh ...…Petitioner

VERSUS

1. Union Of India,
Through
Secretary(Home Affairs)
North Block,
New Delhi, Delhi

2. Central Bureau Of Investigation,

CGO Complex, New Delhi. ……Respondents

PETITIONER

THROUGH

AMIT TIWARI, ANKIT ANANDRAJ SHAH, ADARSH VARMA

ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER,
D-21, LOWER GROUND FLOOR,
DELHI-110014
MOB:8527271621, 9910955904
EMAIL:tiwariamit2215@gmail.com
NEW DELHI
DATED: ______, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION)
Writ Petition (Civil) No. of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
IN THE MATTER OF:

Sarthak Chaturvedi .... Petitioner

VERSUS
Union of India &Anr. .... Respondents

INDEX

S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE COURT

NO. FEES
1 Urgent Application
2 Notice of Motion
3 Certificate
 4 Memo of parties
5 List of dates and events
6 Writ Petition under Article 226, of
Constitution of India along with
supporting affidavit
7 Annexure-A
Copy of FIR bearing No.13(A),
dt.15.10.2018.
8 Annexure-B
Interim Application filed by
Sh.Manish Sinha before Hon’ble
Supreme Court Of India

9 Vakalatnama

PETITIONER

THROUGH

AMIT TIWARI, ANKIT ANANDRAJ SHAH, ADARSH VARMA

ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER,
D-21, LOWER GROUND FLOOR,
DELHI-110014
MOB:8527271621, 9910955904
EMAIL:tiwariamit2215@gmail.com
NEW DELHI
DATED: ______, 2018

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

1946: The Central Bureau of Investigation, constituted

under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, is

an apex institution in the country to investigate

matters involving corruption and such other matters

as may be entrusted to it by judicial pronouncements

or by Central or State government(s). The public

servants working in said organization need to conduct

themselves in a manner so that integrity of the

 institution is maintained. The facts disclosed herein

reflect the abuse of powers by some public servants

working in Central Bureau of Investigation for their

ulterior motives thereby necessitating framing of

comprehensive guidelines qua phone tapping and

surveillance.

October,

2018: At the relevant time, Sh.Alok Kumar Verma, IPS, was

Director of respondent no.2. Amongst others, two

branches relevant for adjudication were firstly, Special

Investigation Team headed by Sh.Rakesh Kumar

Asthana, IPS, working in respondent no.2 as Special

Director and secondly AC Zone, which registered the

case against Rakesh Kumar Asthana and Policy

Decision, which controlled and involved in technical

surveillance and phone tapping headed by

Sh.A.K.Sharma, IPS. The unit involved in Phone

Tapping and technical surveillance in respondent no.2

is known as Special Unit(SU) and it is headed by a

D.I.G rank official. At the relevant time, said unit was

headed by Sh. RakeshRathi, IPS, DIG, Special Unit.

Mr. RakeshRathi reported to Sh.A.K.Sharma, Head of

AC Zone and Policy Division and eventually to Sh.Alok

Kumar Verma, Director, CBI. Another official namely

Sh.ManishSinha IPS, was also DIG and was head of

the branch of AC-III, New Delhi who also reported to

Sh. A K Sharma, AC Zone.

15.10.2018: Respondent no.2, Central Bureau Of Investigation,

upon receiving a written complaint filed by

Mr.SathishBabu Sana registered an F.I.R bearing

no.13(A)/2018/AC-III/New Delhi , under Section 7&

13(2) Read With Section 13(1)(d) & Section 7A of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 read with Section

120B against Sh.RakeshAsthana,Spl. Director, CBI,

New Delhi, Sh.Devender Kumar, Dy. SP, SIT, CBI,

New Delhi, Sh.Manoj Prasad, Sh.Somesh Prasad and

other unknown persons. The FIR was registered

alleging commission of offence under various

provisions by accused persons named therein while

investigating RC22420117A0001 being investigated

by Sh.Devender Kumar, DSP CBI who belonged to

branch/team headed by Sh.Rakesh Kumar Asthana.

The F.I.R bearing no.13(A)/2018/AC-III/New Delhi

was registered by Sh.S.S.Gurm, SP, AC-III, CBI, a

branch headed by Sh.ManishSinha. The investigation

of said FIR was handed over to Sh.A.K.Bassi, DSP,

AC-III, CBI.

After the registration of aforesaid FIR,

Sh.RakeshAsthana also filed complaints alleging

corruption against Sh.Alok Kumar Verma before the

CVC/Cabinet Secretary. These incidents revealed

interse disputes between top officials of respondent

 no.2. These incidents damaged the integrity and

reputation of respondent no.2 in the National and

International domain as India contesting election for

delegate in INTERPOL had to withdraw itself. The

respondent no.1, in order to protect the integrity of

the institution and to enable fair investigation into

allegations leveled by different officials, on

23.10.2018, sent Sh.Alok Kumar Verma and

Sh.Rakesh Kumar Asthana on leave and appointed

Sh.M.NageshwarRao, IPSas interim Director, CBI.

The other officials such as Sh.A.K.Sharma,

Sh.ManishSinha, Sh.S.S.Gurm and Sh.A.K.Bassi

were transferred to different branches/units or

jurisdictions outside Delhi.

23.10.2018: Sh.RakeshAsthana, Spl. Director, CBI, New Delhi, by

way of W.P.(Crl) No.3248/2018, titled as Rakesh

KumarAsthana Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,

approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi seeking

quashing of FIR bearing no.13(A) registered against

him by respondent no.2.

26.10.2018: Sh.Alok Kumar Verma, Director,CBI, New Delhi,

approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by

filing Writ Petition (Civil) No.1309/2018, titled as

Alok Kumar Verma Vs. Union of India &Anr., thereby

assailing the decision of respondent no.1 sending

him on leave pending enquiries by CVC.

30.10.2018: Sh.ManishSinha, DIG, CBI, New Delhi, who was head

of AC-III investigating FIR registered against Sh.

Rakesh Kumar Asthana and transferred to Nagpur

filed two interim application seeking intervention

and for issuance of appropriate directions before

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition

(Civil) No.1309/2018, titled as Alok Kumar Verma

Vs. Union of India &Anr.,wherein several crucial facts

qua an undergoing investigation in

RC22420117A0001 was disclosed which ought to

have been kept confidential. The perusal of

application reveals commission of cognizable offence

of abuse of powers by public servants. Similarly,

Sh.S.S.Gurm and Sh.A.K.Bassi had also filed

applications in the same petition before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court.

31.10.2018: Although, Sh.S.S.Gurm was transferred outside

Delhi and was no more in AC-III, CBI, New Delhi,

on 31.10.2018, he filed an application seeking

impleadment in W.P.(Crl) No.3248/2018, titled as

Rakesh KumarAsthana Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation.Similarly, Sh. A K Bassi, DSP, CBIand

Sh.A.K.Sharma also filed application in said matter

despite the fact that they were no more concerned

with said case as they stood transferred. This

 reveals that they worked as a syndicate for

achieving their ulterior motive.

The application filed by Sh.ManishSinha before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was made public on

a website being run and maintained in the name

and style of www.barbench.com.

Hence this Petition.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION)
Writ Petition (Civil) No. of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
IN THE MATTER OF:

Sarthak Chaturvedi .... Petitioner

VERSUS
Union of India &Anr. .... Respondents

CERTIFICATE
I, Amit Tiwari, Counsel for the petitioner hereby certify that the

identical copies/ photocopies of the annexures relied upon have

been supplied to the all opposite respondents by way of advance

notice.

PETITIONER

THROUGH

AMIT TIWARI, ANKIT ANANDRAJ SHAH, ADARSH VARMA

ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER,
D-21, LOWER GROUND FLOOR,
DELHI-110014
MOB:8527271621, 9910955904
EMAIL:tiwariamit2215@gmail.com
NEW DELHI
DATED: ______, 2018