SC: Under RTE Act, States Cannot Justify Low Teacher Pay by Citing Centre’s Failure to Release Funds  ||  Supreme Court: While a Child’s Welfare is Paramount, It is Not the Sole Factor in Custody Disputes  ||  Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Reject a Plaint While Exercising Jurisdiction under Article 227  ||  SC: Merely Leasing an Apartment Does Not Bar a Flat Buyer’s Consumer Complaint Against the Builder  ||  Delhi HC: Unproven Adultery Allegations Cannot be Used to Deny Interim Maintenance under the DV Act  ||  Bombay HC: Storing Items in a Fridge isn’t Manufacturing and Doesn’t Make Premises a Factory  ||  Kerala HC: Disability Pension is Not Payable if the Condition is Unrelated to Military Service  ||  Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time  ||  Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS  ||  Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC    

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