WP.Nos.5466 & 5470 of 2020 preventing incitement to the commission of an offence. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2007 AP 102 in the case of KLD Nagasree vs. Government of India on the file of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Accordingly, the first respondent can pass order only on the event that any public emergency or in the interest of public safety. None of the aforesaid pre-requisite were present in the case on hand to invoke the power under Section 5(2) of the said Act. The order of interception of the telephonic conversation can be passed for the reasons to be recorded in writing. Whereas the impugned order was passed without stating any reasons and it shows non application of mind of the first respondent herein. 3. He further submitted that in the absence of public emergency or interest of public safety as contained under Section 5 (2) of the said Act, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed. The procedural safeguards for the exercise of Section 5(2) of the said Act mentioned under Rule 419(a) of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 has flagrantly been violated by the first respondent while passing the impugned order. The petitioners are citizen of democratic country like India, where one holds right to life, right to privacy and right of freedom and expression also has right to have private telephonic conversation in an uninterrupted manner as http://www.judis.nic.in 4/22