WP.Nos.5466 & 5470 of 2020 tapping and it is violative of the conditions mentioned in Section 5 (2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The expression “public emergency” has not been defined in the statute. In sub-section (1) the phrase “occurrence of any public emergency” is connected with and is immediately followed by the phrase “or in the interests of the public safety”. These two phrases appear to take colour from each other, in which the first part of sub-section (2) those two phrases again occur in association with each other, and the context further clarifies with amplification that a “public emergency” within the contemplation of this Section is one which raises problems concerning the interest of the public safety, the sovereignty and the integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for the prevention of incitement to the commission of an offence. It is in the contest of these matters that the appropriate authority has to form an opinion with regards to the occurrence of “public emergency with a view to taking further action”. In the case on hand, the order for telephone tapping was passed on the occurrence of the aforesaid circumstances, namely on the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Vs. Union of India reported in (1997) 1 SCC 301, wherein it is held as follows: http://www.judis.nic.in 13/22