WP.Nos.5466 & 5470 of 2020 India in the case of PUCL(supra) has held that the telephone tapping cannot happen unless specific criteria as mentioned in Section 5(2) of Indian Telegraph Act or satisfied along with the criteria laid down is not applicable to the case on hand. Further it is also seen that the first respondent passed the order with application of mind taking into consideration the circumstances prevailing in the matter after having satisfied on the basis of the material placed before the authority that the circumstances of the case warrants lawful interception. The five circumstances laid under Section (5) (2) of the Indian Telegraph Act related to the public emergency or interest of the public safety. The authority is within the powers conferred by the Act to order for lawful interception. It would also be seen that not only the bodily injury to the members of the public or the injury to a minimum number of persons would constitute public safety. With the latest communication tools in the form of powerful mobile phones becoming available in every hand in the country which are equipped with applications ensuring encrypted communication. The available avenues with the potential criminals, have increased manifolds and it is becoming increasingly difficult to prevent and detect crime. Restricting the concept of public safety to the mere “situations that would be apparent to the reasonable persons” will exclude most of the actual threats which present the most grave circumstances like terrorist attacks, corruption at high places, http://www.judis.nic.in 16/22