It would be most vital to note that in a path breaking move with far reaching implications, the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Aakash Deep Chouhan vs CBI & Anr in CRL.M.C. 204/2020 & CRL.M.A. 890/2020 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:5019 that was pronounced as recently as on 26.06.2025 has minced absolutely just no words whatsoever to hold most unequivocally that intercepting phone calls to tackle large scale corruption is valid. It was also pointed out by the Court that corruption has a pervasive impact on a nation’s economy. This was held so while rejecting a plea that had been filed by an accused named Aakash Deep Chouhan who was accused of bribery involving a Rs 2,149.93 crore project against interception of calls and messages by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). To put it differently, we thus see that the Delhi High Court has made it indubitably clear in this most laudable judgment that intercepting calls to prevent the commission of massive corruption involving large amounts of money is permissible since such offences have the capacity to influence the public at large. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this progressive, pragmatic, pertinent, persuasive and powerful judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Mahajan sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The present petition is filed challenging the order on charge dated 19.10.2019 (hereafter ‘impugned order’), passed by the learned Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, in CC No. 02/2018 arising out of RC No. AC-1/2017-A-0008. By the impugned order, it was found that charge for the offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) read with Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’) is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner is also seeking directions for expunging/destruction of telephonic messages/calls allegedly unlawfully intercepted by CBI.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the facts of the case that, “The brief facts of the case are as follows:
2.1. On 22.12.2017, RC No. AC-1/2017-A-0008 was registered by CBI/AC-1 for offences under Section 120B of the IPC and under Sections 9 and 10 of the PC Act.
2.2. It is the case of the prosecution that reliable information was received that M/s. Capacite Structures Limited was trying to get a part of the work on sub contract basis from M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. (P) Ltd., which had been awarded a contract for redevelopment of ITPO Complex into Integrated Exhibition-Cum -Convention Centre at Pragati Maidan, Delhi by M/s. NBCC (India) Ltd. (a government enterprise).
2.3. It is alleged that the source had informed that the accused Sanjay Kulkarni (the Managing Director of M/s. Capacite Structures Limited) had approached the accused Rishabh, who is a private person with good contacts with various public servants for securing the said work in favour of his company. It is alleged that in furtherance of the conspiracy, the accused Rishabh had contacted the accused Pradeep Kumar Mishra, working as Asstt. Director in IB (on deputation from BSF), who was close to certain senior functionaries of M/s. NBCC (India) Ltd.
2.4. It is alleged that the accused Pradeep had assured that the work could be awarded to M/s. Capacite Structures Limited, through his close contacts and personal influence with Mr. Anoop Kumar Mittal, CMD, M/s. NBCC (India) Ltd. and the accused Pradeep made a demand for a New Royal Enfield Bullet as a part of the illegal gratification. The accused Rishabh conveyed the demand to the accused Sanjay over phone, who agreed to the same.
2.5. The source further informed that under the influence of the accused Pradeep, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mittal directed the Executive Director, M/s. NBCC (India) Ltd. to settle the matter in favour of M/s. Capacite Structures Limited. In furtherance of the conspiracy, on 15.12.2017, a meeting took place between the accused Sanjay, representatives of M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. (P) Ltd. and some senior level officers of M/s. NBCC (India) Ltd., including its Executive Director. It is alleged that after the meeting, Mr. Anoop assured the accused Pradeep and the accused Sanjay about the work being awarded by M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. (P) Ltd. to M/s. Capacite Structures Limited and further asserted that if the work was not given to M/s. Capacite Structures Limited, it would not be given to anyone else.
2.6. It is alleged that in furtherance of the conspiracy, the demanded motorcycle was to be delivered as part of illegal gratification by the petitioner, who was an employee of the accused Sanjay, to the accused Pradeep in Delhi.
2.7. During investigation, it was found that the accused Sanjay was interested in obtaining steel work on sub-contract basis from M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. (P) Ltd. in the project awarded to them by M/s. NBCC (India) Ltd. and had been in touch with M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. (P) Ltd. since the pre-tender stage. It was found that the accused Sanjay had also submitted his proposal in June, 2017, however, on not getting any proper response, he entered into the criminal conspiracy with the accused Rishabh.
2.8. It was further found that after the accused Rishabh had informed the accused Sanjay about the demand by the accused Pradeep for a New Royal Enfield Bullet Motorcycle. The accused Sanjay had sent cash to his brother- Ajay Kulkarni, which was delivered at the residence of the petitioner. Thereafter, the accused Rishabh had conveyed consent of the accused Sanjay to the petitioner and directed him to purchase the motorcycle and deliver it to the accused Pradeep.
2.9. In pursuance of the conspiracy, the petitioner contacted a Sales Executive and booked Royal Enfield Bullet Motorcycle chosen by the accused Pradeep. The petitioner also allegedly obtained the documents required for the purchase of the motorcycle from the accused Pradeep. On 22.12.2017, the petitioner received delivery of the same and delivered it to the accused Pradeep at the address conveyed by him along with the keys and copies of documents of the motorcycle.
2.10. A CBI trap team along with independent witnesses recovered the motorcycle from the accused Pradeep in the evening of 22.12.2017. It was found that an amount of ₹1,45,660/- for purchasing the motorcycle was paid from the account of the petitioner.
2.11. The Special Unit, CBI had also intercepted the calls since 01.11.2017 to 22.12.2017 of five mobile numbers, with two numbers belonging to the accused Rishabh and one each of the accused Pradeep, the accused Sanjay and the petitioner. It is alleged that 74 recorded conversations pertaining to the said mobile numbers established the conspiracy between the accused persons for obtaining the subcontract from M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. (P) Ltd., and in lieu of which, the accused Pradeep had accepted gratification in the form of a new Bullet Motorcycle. It is alleged that the accused Sanjay agreed to give the motorcycle as gratification to the accused Pradeep and the accused Rishabh and the petitioner acted as middlemen in the commission of the crime. The voices of the accused persons were identified by independent witnesses and the voice samples of the accused persons were sent for CFSL for comparison with the voices of intercepted calls/conversations and CFSL has given positive report.
2.12. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge observed that a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons, including the petitioner, for the offence under Section 120B of the IPC and Section 9 of the PC Act.
2.13. Formal charges were framed against the petitioner by order dated 22.10.2019.
2.14. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present petition.”
Briefly stated, the Bench points out in para 26 that, “Although every person has a fundamental right to privacy, the said right is not absolute and it can be curtailed by procedure established by law. The aforesaid provision empowers the Central Government or a State Government or any officer specially authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government to legally carry out interception or surveillance in the event of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety. In the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India : (1997) 1 SCC 301, while considering the vires of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Hon’ble Apex Court had expounded upon what comes under public emergency or public safety.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 27 that, “It is argued on behalf of CBI that destruction of the intercepted calls is not warranted and the condition precedent of public safety, as prescribed under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, is met in the present case as the allegations pertain to corruption which poses a risk on the economic well being of the country and its people.”
To put it tersely, the Bench most significantly observes in para 28 that, “This Court finds merit in the said argument. The threat posed by corruption cannot be understated. Corruption has a pervasive impact on a nation’s economy and the same can impact anything from infrastructural development to resource allocation. Corruption by a public servant has far reaching consequences as it serves to not only erode public trust and cast aspersions on the integrity of public institutions, but also renders the public at large susceptible and vulnerable by threatening the economic safety of the country. The pervasive nature of corruption has been recognised by many Courts and it has been noted that the same undermines the core values of Indian Preambular vision [Ref. Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh : (2012) 3 SCC 64]. In the case of Sanjay Bhandari v. Ministry of Home Affairs : 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 28021, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras had dismissed the writ petitions that were filed challenging the order directing interception of certain mobile number.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 30 that, “In the present case, the allegations relate to the accused persons seeking to secure a sub-contract, by way of corruption, from a company that was awarded the task of redevelopment of ITPO Complex into Integrated Exhibition-Cum-Convention Centre on the basis of personal influence rather than merit of the bid. The allegations are grave in nature and, if proven, would render dubious the entire process of awarding of tenders and bids on the basis of personal influence with senior officers rather than benefit of the public at large. Although it cannot be generalized that all allegations in relation to corruption would have the capacity of influencing the public at large, the allegations herein don’t relate to a trivial project but one that was awarded for Rs 2149.93 crores where the work sought by way of influence would have been of a substantial sum as well. The economic scale of the offence, in the opinion of this Court, satisfies the threshold of “public safety”.”
Quite significantly, the Bench points out in para 52 holding that, “In a nutshell, at this stage, prima facie, the material on record including the calls cast grave suspicion against the petitioner which shows that even though he may not be the ultimate beneficiary to the offence, he was participating in the transfer of bribe despite knowing about the nature of the transaction. While the guilt of the petitioner would be ascertained in trial, at this stage, the conversations and the statement of the petitioner’s driver cast grave suspicion against him.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 53 that, “It is also pertinent to note that the present case has been pending before this Court since the year 2020 and the trial has since proceeded. Needless to say, it is open to the petitioner to raise all arguments before the learned Trial Court.”
Resultantly, the Bench then holds in para 54 that, “In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order or to order destruction of the intercepted call recordings.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by aptly holding in para 55 that, “The present petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.”
Sanjeev Sirohi
