The facts involve the government's invocation of interception powers citing public safety concerns. The Court observed that Section 5(2) permits interception only in cases of a public emergency or in the interest of public safety, requiring written reasons and strict adherence to procedural safeguards. The Court clarified that a public emergency refers to situations affecting the public at large, such as political or communal unrest, threats to national security, or public disorder, and not merely economic emergencies. The Court emphasized that the interception must be necessary and proportionate, adhering to constitutional principles, including the right to privacy under Article 21. Any invocation of Section 5(2) must balance state interests with individual rights.
The Court in this case specifically restricted the use of Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act to public emergencies. In order to prevent the government from misusing its powers, the Court also laid down a definition of the same, and in order to tap telephones or other electronic devices, it is neccessary that the situations must be so grave as to constitute public emergency. Thus, the ruling imposed restriction surveillance powers of the government.