AMAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

Judgment

[2011] 6 S.C.R. 403 AMAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Writ petition (Civil) No. 39 of 2006) MAY 11, 2011 A B [G. S. SINGHVI AND ASHOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.) CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: 0. 19, r. 3 CPC and 0. 11 of Supreme Court Rules - c Affidavits in support of petitions - Affirming of contents of the petition in the affidavits - Disclosure of source of information in an affidavit - Significance of - Explained - HELD: In the instant writ petition, the petitioner approached the Court in a I casual manner - The affidavit filed by him in support of the 0 petition, relying on which the Court issued notice, was not at all modelled either on 0. 19 r. 3 CPC or 0. 11 of Supreme Court Rules - If the rules of affirming the affida.vits were followed, it would have been difficult for the petitioner to file the petition and so much of judicial time would have been E; saved - Perfunctory and slipshod affidavits which are not consistent either with 0.

19, r. 3 CPC or with 0. 11, rr. 5 and 13 of Supreme Court Rules, should not be entertained by the Court - Registry of the. Court.directed to scrutinize affidavits in all petitions/applications strictly - Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - 0. 11 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32. F PLEADINGS: Inconsistent stands by writ petitioner - HELD: A litigant who comes to Court and invokes its writ jurisdiction must G come with clean hands - He cannot prevaricate and take inconsistent positions - It is one of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence that litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings and especially when it contains a 403 H 404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 6 S.C.R. A prayer for injunction, which is an equitable remedy and must be governed by principles of 'uberrima fide' - Equity - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32.

CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950: B Articles 32and 21 - Writ petition alleging infringement of right of privacy of the petitioner stating that his telephone conversations were being intercepted at the behest of the Government- HELD: The petitioner invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court without filing a proper affidavit - C The nature of challenge in the petition is very serious as he is alleging an attempt by the government of intercepting his phone for extraneous considerations - It is, therefore, imperative that before m<Jking such an a/legation the petitioner should be careful, circumspeCt and should file a · D proper affidavit in support of the averments in the petition - This is the primary duty of a petitioner, who invokes the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 32 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Supreme Court Rules, 1966.

E F Article 32 - Writ petition - Conduct of petitioner - Writ petition filed alleging interception of his telephone conversations by the Government agencies at the behest of the political party in power - A/legations directly and indirectly made in the writ petition against the said political party impleading it as one of the respondents -Interim injunction passed by Court - Later, it was brought before the Court that the order intercepting the phone calls were fabricated and a criminal case had already been registered against accused persons - Affidavit filed by the petitioner seeking to withdraw the a/legations against the said political party - HELD: The G main case of the petitioner is based on his a/legations against the said political party - Petitioner has been shifting his stand to suit his convenience - The instant writ petition is an attempt by the petitioner to mislead the Court on the basis of frivolous a/legations and by suppressing material facts - The so-called H legal questions on tapping of telephone cannot be gone into AMAR SINGH v.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 405 on the basis of a petition which is so weak in its foundation - A No case of tapping of telephone has been made out against the statutory authorities in view of the criminal case, which is going on, and the petitioner's stand that he is satisfied with the investigation in that case - Besides, the petitioner in fifing the writ petition largely relied upon the information received B from an accused in the criminal case. Article 32 - Writ petition - Suppression of material fact - Effect of - Writ petition alleging tapping of telephone of writ petitioner-The communications on the basis of which the C interception was alleged and which were received from the accused and were made annexures in the writ petition, found to be forged and criminal case initiated in which petitioner's statement uls 161 CrPC was recorded - This fact not stated in the writ petition - HELD: A statement uls 161 is certainly material fact in a police investigation in connection with an D FIR - The investigation is to find out the genuineness of those very documents on the basis of which the writ petition was moved - In· that factual context, total suppression in the writ petition of the fact that the petitioner gave as.

161 stater;nent in that investigation is suppression of a very material faCt -A E litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or .Who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, Is not entitled to any relief, interim or final - The instant writ petition is an attempt by the petitioner to mislead the Court on the basis of frivolous allegations and by suppression of material F facts - Administration of justice - Conduct of litigant - Relief. TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885: s.5 - Interception of telephone conversations - Duty of service provider - HELD: Though the service provider is to G give assistance, as per request, to the law enforcement agencies and has to act on an urgent basis and in public interest, at the same time, he is equally duty bound to immediately verify the authenticity of such communication if on a reasonable reading of the same, it appears to any H 406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 6 S.C.R.

A person, acting bona fide, that such communication, with innumerable mistakes, falls clearly short of the tenor of a In the instant case, the genuine official communication - service provider has failed in discharging the said duty - Central Government must, therefore, frame certain statutory B guidelines in this regard to prevent interception of telephone conversations on unauthorised communications - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32. The instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner alleging that on a request made on 22.10.2005 from the C office of the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), New Delhi to Nodal Officer, Reliance lnfocom Ltd (respondent no. 8), the conversations of the petitioner on phone were intercepted; that the said request was subsequently authorised by an order dated 9.11.2005 from the Principal D Secretary (Home), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi; that the petitioner had learnt that the government of India and the Government of NCT of Delhi were pressurised by respondent no.7, namely, Indian National Congress for intercepting, monitoring and E recording his telephone conversations; that there were similar cases of interception of phone conversations of other people, including some of country's leading political figures who were using the services provided by respondent no.

8; that the action of the respondents F amounted to infringing to his fundamental right of privacy. He, therefore, prayed that the order for interceptions be declared as unconstitutional and, therefore, void; and that damages be awarded to him. It was further prayed that all the service providers including G respondent no. 8 along with others impleaded in the petition be directed to disclose all relevant details with respect to the directions of interception issued to them by the authorities and the Court may lay down guidelines on interception of phone conversations in addition to H those laid down in the case of People's Union for Civil AMAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 407 Liberties. The Union of India and the Government of NCT A of Delhi denied the allegations.

Their case was that the orders dated 22.10.2005 and 9.11.2005 purporting to have been issued by the authorities concerned were fabricated with forged signatures and were not genuine; that a criminal case in that respect had already been initiated B and pursuant to the inquiry an FIR under various sections of the Penal Code and the Telegraph Act had been registered on 30.12.2005 and in its investigation the petitioner's statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded; that pursuant to the investigation charges were framed c by the competent court againstfour accused including one 'AS'. Dismissing the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1.1. The petitioner approached the Court in a D casual manner. The affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of his petition, and relying on which this Court issued notice on 24.1.2006, is not at all modelled either on 0.19, r.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 or 0.11 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.

422-A] [Para 11) (421-G-H; E