Can the police conduct surveillance and wiretapping based solely on a complaint from a “concerned mother”? Former IPS officer Kiran Bedi appears to believe so
Following reports and on the prolonged surveillance of her daughter, Bedi defended the police action, calling it “legit” and insisting her involvement was that of a worried parent. She maintained that she merely raised concerns and did not authorise any surveillance measures.
“I did not authorise anything. I was a complainant raising a concern. Authorisation of any surveillance measures is entirely the purview of the police department, following due legal procedures,” she stated on X (formerly Twitter). “It is entirely lawful and legitimate for any citizen to approach the police when there is a reasonable apprehension of potential criminal activity. Preventing and detecting crime is the core function of responsible policing, and I have always upheld that principle.”
However, emails accessed during the investigation contradict this claim. In September 2003, Bedi sent an email to Ujjwal Mishra, a Delhi police official involved in the surveillance operation on her daughter, Saina Bedi, and her daughter’s partner, Gopal Suri. In the email, Bedi appeared dissatisfied with the intelligence being provided, writing:
“My dear Ujjwal[,] This is to say other unprofessional sources are able to feed me with more info than…..you.”
She urged Mishra to treat the matter as his own and handle it accordingly. In another email that same month, marked to over a dozen people, Bedi discussed the role of Mukund Upadhye, then a deputy commissioner in the Delhi police crime branch. She wrote about the need to identify his successor, stating:
“We need to identify Mukund’s successor. For who is the cop who will maintain the pressure. After Mukund leaves for his duties in Arunachal.”
When Is Surveillance Legal?
This raises the question: under what circumstances can such surveillance be legally conducted?
In 2003, legal interceptions in India were governed by Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, which allowed surveillance under five specific conditions: matters concerning national security, the integrity of India, foreign relations, public order, or crime prevention. However, the Telegraph Rules of 1951 lacked clarity on the procedure for such interceptions. Until 2014, phone tapping in India was guided solely by Supreme Court guidelines issued in 1996, which were meant to prevent misuse.
According to these guidelines:
Only the Union or State Home Secretary could issue an order for surveillance. In urgent cases, a joint secretary-level officer could authorise it.
Each interception order had to specify the communication to be intercepted, the individuals targeted, and the recipient of the intercepted material.
The duration of interception was capped at two months, extendable for a maximum of six months.
A review committee, comprising top-ranking officials like the cabinet secretary and chief secretary, had to assess each order. If found unlawful, the intercepted data was to be destroyed.
The investigation found that Saina Bedi and Gopal Suri’s phones were wiretapped for at least four months between August and November 2003. It remains unclear whether the surveillance was officially authorised or if it was renewed beyond the permitted time frame.
Moreover, emails suggest that Bedi was regularly updated about the findings from intercepted calls, raising further concerns about whether a complainant can legally receive such intelligence. The guidelines at the time did not clarify whether complainants could be kept informed during a surveillance operation.
When contacted for a response before the report was published, Bedi evaded key questions about who authorised the surveillance. In an email, she wrote:
“When I felt that my daughter was being innocently trapped and targeted (27 years ago) I requested the police to save an innocent life. The police did its duty.”
Surveillance Laws Today
In present-day India, phone tapping and surveillance are governed by Section 20(2) of the Telecommunication Act, 2023. The law grants the central and state governments, or their authorised officers, the power to intercept or block communications under specific conditions. The grounds for interception remain the same as in the Telegraph Act.
The procedure is outlined in the Telecommunications (Procedures and Safeguards for Lawful Interception of Messages) Rules, 2024, which introduce more checks and balances, particularly in authorisation and review. However, the core requirement of high-level approval remains unchanged from 2003.
A former senior Delhi police officer clarified that no interception can occur without approval from the highest bureaucratic levels. “Only authorised officials can order surveillance to prevent misuse. If the mobile phone is outside the state, the Union Home Secretary must approve it. If it is within the state, the State Home Secretary grants permission,” the official explained.
Additionally, special commissioners in the Delhi police can approve surveillance for up to seven days, but this must be confirmed by a higher authority.
Legal experts argue that without this approval, any surveillance is unlawful.
Supreme Court advocate Prasanna S., an expert in privacy and data protection laws, stated: “The fundamental requirement of high-level clearance is the same in all rules regarding interception. If this clearance was not obtained, any surveillance is outside the law.”
Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh, who has handled cases on privacy and phone tapping, emphasised that surveillance must serve a legitimate public interest. “If she is tapping the phone of her daughter, it is blatantly illegal. It could not be for public order,” he said.
A Case of Misuse Of Authority?
The question remains: did Bedi overstep her role as a complainant and influence the police into launching an unauthorised surveillance operation? The emails suggest she had direct involvement in its execution, regularly communicated with officers about it, and sought continued pressure even as key officials changed.
If the surveillance did not receive high-level clearance, it would be a violation of Indian law—an instance of personal influence overriding legal safeguards. While police are responsible for crime prevention, they cannot bypass due process, even at the behest of a senior officer.
Ultimately, the case highlights long-standing concerns over privacy, misuse of power, and unlawful surveillance—issues that continue to be debated in India’s legal and political landscape today.