In the landmark People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India case (1997) regarding phone tapping, the Supreme Court held that telephone tapping violates Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a) unless which of the following statutory conditions under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is strictly met?

Explanation

In the PUCL case (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that telephone conversation is a part of modern life and is protected under the right to privacy (Article 21) and freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)). The court held that under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, phone tapping can only be authorized if there is a 'public emergency' or a threat to 'public safety'. It also laid down detailed procedural safeguards, such as review committees, to prevent arbitrary wiretapping.