Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment  ||  SC: Later Sanction Requirement Won’t Invalidate Cognizance Taken When No Prior Bar Existed  ||  SC: Documents Not Admitted by an Employee in an Enquiry Must be Proved Through Witnesses  ||  Delhi HC: MHA Has Authority to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Against AGMUT IAS Officers  ||  MP HC: Financial Hardship or Mere Allegations of Lawyer’s Negligence Cannot Excuse Delayed Appeal  ||  Patna HC: Blanket Approach of Denying Public Employment to Individuals Named in an FIR is Unfair  ||  Kerala HC: Repeated Possession of Even Small Quantities of Narcotic Drugs Can Invoke KAAPA  ||  Calcutta HC: Employers May Deduct Penal Rent From Gratuity of Employees Refusing to Vacate Quarters  ||  Calcutta High Court: ECI Not Singling Out Bengal, More Transfers in Other Poll-Bound States    

Raj HC: Procedural Safeguards Provided by Statute Must be Followed Strictly - (24 Jul 2023)

CIVIL

Rajasthan High Court while quashing interception orders for phone tapping of a private individual issued by authorities in the state in 2020-2021, observed that when the statute provides procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary infringement of the rights to privacy, it must be strictly followed.

Tags : RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT   PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS   INTERCEPTION ORDERS   PHONE TAPPING  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved