new delhi the delhi hc has held that permitting illegally intercepted messages and audio conversations as evidence without any sanction will lead to manifest arbitrariness and promote scant regard for the procedure and fundamental rights of the citizens such recordings are not admissible as evidence in courts the hc said while setting aside an order to frame charges against a man for allegedly facilitating mbbs admissions at a patiala college in exchange of bribesjustice chandra dhari singh said according to section 52 of telegraph act an order for interception could be issued on either the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety as per the judgment of the supreme court in the peoples union for civil liberties vs union of india case in 1997the apex court had held the right to privacy would certainly include telephone conversation in the privacy of ones home or office later the puttaswamy judgment had held the right to privacy was protected by the constitution as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under article 21 and as part of the freedom guaranteed by part iii of constitution of indiacbi registered a case in 2010 for an alleged criminal conspiracy in 2012 a trial court framed charges against the petitioner and other accused the material submitted against the petitioner was the audio recording of his conversation with accused sukhwinder singh and ketan desai according to the petitioner the alleged recordings and all such material ought to be set at naughtin its 80page judgment the high court noted that as per rule 419a under telegraph act an order of the home secretary granting permission to intercept telephonic conversations was to be forwarded to the review committee within seven days which was not done in this case therefore this court is convinced that the special judge while passing the impugned orders has totally ignored the provisions of the aforesaid rules it addedthe tape records of the calls are not admissible since the due procedure for such interception wasnt followed the judge pointed out even the same has not been verified in the fsl forensic report no further witnessevidence to implicate the petitioner is on record