Amar Singh vs Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2011 AIR SCW 3297, 2011 (7) SCC 69

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly, Justice G.S. Singhvi

Introduction

The case of Amar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. delves into the crucial intersection of fundamental rights and state power, specifically concerning the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and the alleged abuse of governmental authority through unauthorized telephone interception. The case underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual liberties against potential executive overreach and emphasizes the importance of procedural integrity and truthful disclosure in legal proceedings before the Supreme Court. The judgment serves as a significant precedent on the principles governing affidavit practice and the conduct expected of litigants approaching the highest court of the nation, particularly in matters concerning fundamental rights violations.

Background Facts

Amar Singh filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 39 of 2006 in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging the illegal interception of his telephone conversations. Singh contended that the Union of India and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, influenced by the Indian National Congress (Respondent No. 7), were behind this unauthorized phone tapping.

Key claims by Singh included:

1. His phone conversations were being intercepted without lawful authority, violating his fundamental right to privacy under Article 21.
2. The phone tapping was politically motivated, targeting him due to his perceived opposition to the ruling political party at the Centre.
3. He possessed documents, purportedly interception orders, obtained from sources indicating this illegal surveillance.

Singh presented these alleged interception orders as evidence to the Court, seeking judicial intervention to declare the orders unconstitutional, initiate an inquiry, and award damages for the privacy violation. The Union of India and other respondents subsequently contested the authenticity of these orders, claiming they were forged.

Key Legal Provisions and Theories

1. Constitution of India:

• Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies; invoked by the petitioner to file the writ petition in the Supreme Court for the protection of fundamental rights.
• Article 21: Right to Protection of Life and Personal Liberty; specifically, the fundamental right to privacy claimed by the petitioner as being violated by the alleged phone interception.
• Article 19(1)(a): Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression; invoked by interveners arguing for the public’s right to know the content of conversations of public functionaries, although not central to the court’s final decision.

2. Indian Telegraph Act:

• Section 5: Provisions related to the power to order interception of messages. The judgment references this section in the context of the legal basis for lawful phone tapping and procedures that should be followed.

3. Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):

• Order XIX Rule 3: Deals with affidavits and specifies that affidavits shall be confined to facts within the deponent’s knowledge, except on interlocutory applications where statements of belief may be admitted if grounds are stated. This rule is central to the court’s criticism of the petitioner’s affidavit.

4. Supreme Court Rules, 1966:

• Order XI Rule 5: Similar to Order XIX Rule 3 of CPC, it outlines the requirements for affidavits in the Supreme Court, emphasizing that they should be based on personal knowledge, except in interlocutory matters with stated grounds for belief.
• Order XI Rule 13: Defines “affidavit” and “sworn” and mandates the distinction between statements based on personal knowledge and those based on information and belief, requiring disclosure of sources for information-based statements.

5. Principles of Affidavit Law and Practice:

• Emphasis on Verification and Source Disclosure: The judgment heavily relies on established principles concerning affidavits, derived from precedents like Padmabati Dasi v. Rasik Lal Dhar, State of Bombay v. Purushottam Jog Naik, Barium Chemicals Limited, and A. K. K. Nambiar v. Union of India. These principles stress the necessity for affidavits to clearly distinguish between statements of personal knowledge and belief and to disclose the sources of information for belief-based statements, enabling the court to assess the affidavit’s evidentiary value.
• Rejection of Slipshod Affidavits: The court strongly disapproves perfunctory and defective affidavits, highlighting that affidavits not compliant with Order XIX Rule 3 CPC or Order XI Rules 5 and 13 of the Supreme Court Rules are liable to be rejected and should not be entertained.

6. Doctrine of “Clean Hands”:

• This equitable doctrine is invoked, emphasizing that litigants who approach the court must do so with honesty and the full disclosure of facts. The petitioner’s suppression of material facts and inconsistent positions violate this principle, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

7. Principles of the Uberrima Fide in Injunctions

• Related to the “clean hands” doctrine, this principle requires utmost good faith, especially when seeking equitable remedies such as injunctions. The court noted that a prayer for injunction demands total clarity and candor in pleadings.

These legal provisions and theories form the core framework upon which the Supreme Court’s judgment in Amar Singh vs. the Union of India and Ors. is based, particularly concerning procedural propriety, affidavit practice, and ethical conduct expected of litigants before the court.

Key Legal Issues

1. Fundamental Right to Privacy

• Does the alleged interception of the petitioner’s phone conversations constitute a violation of his fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?

2. Evidentiary Value and Procedural Propriety of Affidavits:

• To what extent should affidavits in writ petitions, particularly in the Supreme Court, adhere to the procedural requirements and evidentiary standards stipulated by the Code of Civil Procedure and Supreme Court Rules, especially regarding verification, source disclosure, and personal knowledge?

3. Conduct of Litigants and the “Clean Hands” Doctrine

• What are the expected standards of conduct for litigants approaching the Supreme Court, and under what circumstances will the court invoke the “clean hands” doctrine to refuse relief based on a litigant’s lack of candor, suppression of facts, or inconsistent positions?

4. Duty Responsibility of Service Providers in Interception Orders

• What is the extent of the duty and responsibility of service providers, such as telecom companies, to verify the authenticity and legality of government orders for phone interception, particularly when faced with orders containing apparent irregularities or defects?

Arguments Presented

1. Amar Singh (Petitioner):

• His fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 was violated by the illegal interception of his phone conversation.
• The Government of India and the Government of the NCT of Delhi, influenced by Respondent No. 7 (Indian National Congress) were responsible for illegal phone tapping.
• Phone interception was politically motivated, and targeted individuals were not aligned with the ruling party at the center.
• Presented purported interception orders as evidence of illegal surveillance, claiming that they were authentic and proving the government’s actions.
• Sought judicial intervention to declare the interception orders unconstitutional, initiate an inquiry, award damages, and establish guidelines for phone interception.

2. Union of India and Ors. (Respondents):

• Denied all allegations of illegal phone tapping and violations of privacy rights.
• Purported interception orders presented by the petitioner were fabricated and forged documents.
• Initiated a criminal investigation into the forgery of alleged interception orders.
• Argued that the petitioner’s claims were based on unreliable and fabricated evidence.
• Highlighted the deficiencies in the petitioner’s affidavit, pointing out the lack of proper verification and disclosure of sources of information.
• Service provider, Reliance Infocom (Respondent No. 8), stated that they acted upon what appeared to be official orders and were not responsible for verifying the authenticity of government directives in detail under urgent circumstances.

3. Interveners (Civil Society Groups):

• Argued that the petitioner’s conversations as a public functionary were public in nature.
• Claimed citizens have the right to know the content of such conversations under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution (Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression).
• Prayed for the court to vacate the interim order of injunction that restrained the media from publishing the conversations, advocating for the public’s right to information.

 

Judgment

1. Dismissal of the Writ Petition

• The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Amar Singh.
• The Court found the petition to be frivolous and speculative in character, based on an incorrect presentation of facts and suppression of material information.

2. Affidavit Deficiencies and “Clean Hands”

• The Court heavily criticized the petitioner’s affidavit as perfunctory, slipshod, and not compliant with Order XIX Rule 3 of the CPC and Order XI Rules 5 and 13 of the Supreme Court Rules.
• It emphasizes the importance of proper affidavits, verification, and disclosure of sources of information in legal proceedings, especially in the Supreme Court.
• The Court invoked the doctrine of “clean hands,” stating that litigants must approach the court with honesty and full disclosure, which the petitioner failed to do.

3. Forged Documents and Misleading the Court

• The Court determined that the purported interception orders presented by the petitioner were forged and fabricated.
• The petitioner was found to have misled the court by relying on these forged documents and suppressing the fact that he had provided a statement under Section 161 CrPC in the forged investigation.

4. Service Provider’s Duty and Failure

• While recognizing the service provider’s obligation to act on urgent government requests, the Court held that Reliance Infocom (Respondent No.) failed in its duty by not exercising reasonable care in verifying the authenticity of the interception order, especially given the numerous glaring errors in it.
• The Court clarified that service providers must act responsibly and should, even while acting promptly, attempt to verify the genuineness of interception requests, particularly those that appear manifestly flawed.

5. No Decision on the Merits of Phone Tapping

• The Court explicitly stated that it was not deciding on the merits of the issue of telephone tapping in general or the specifics of whether lawful tapping occurred in this case.
• The dismissal was based on procedural impropriety, misrepresentation of facts, and lack of “clean hands” on the part of the petitioner, rather than on the substantive issues of privacy and phone interception itself.

6. Liberty to Proceed against Service Providers

• While dismissing the writ petition, the Court granted the petitioner the liberty to initiate proceedings against the service provider (Respondent No. 8) in an appropriate forum if advised, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of such a potential case.

7. Direction to the Registry of Affidavit Scrutiny

• The Court directed the Registry of the Supreme Court to scrutinize all affidavits, petitions, and applications strictly henceforth to ensure compliance with procedural rules and reject those that do not meet the required standards, aiming to prevent frivolous litigation based on deficient affidavits.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Amar Singh vs. the Union of India and Ors. stands as a significant judgment, not primarily for its advancement of privacy law but for its forceful reaffirmation of procedural integrity and ethical standards within the Indian judicial system. The Supreme Court’s dismissal of Amar Singh’s writ petition was a direct consequence of the petitioner’s flawed affidavits, reliance on fabricated evidence, and lack of candor, underscoring the paramount importance of “clean hands” and truthful disclosure when seeking justice, especially in the highest court. The case serves as a lasting precedent emphasizing the necessity of meticulous affidavit practices, the responsibilities of service providers in handling sensitive government requests, and the judiciary’s firm stance against frivolous and misleading litigation. While substantive privacy concerns remain largely unaddressed in this specific instance, the judgment’s enduring legacy lies in its powerful message about procedural discipline, ethical conduct, and the unwavering commitment of the Supreme Court to uphold the integrity of the judicial process, above all else.

 

References:

• Amar Singh v Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 69 (SC)
• Padmabati Dasi v Rasik Lal Dhar (1910) 12 CLJ 248
• State of Bombay v Purushottam Jog Naik 1952 SCR 674
• Barium Chemicals Ltd v Company Law Board 1967 SCR (2) 92
• A K K Nambiar v Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 708 (SC)
• Constitution of India 1950, art 19(1)(a), art 21, art 32
• Indian Telegraph Act 1885 (India), s 5
• Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (India), O XIX r 3
• Supreme Court Rules 1966 (India), O XI r 5, 13
• Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (India), s 161