Ruling on 18 December 1996, the Supreme Court held that unauthorised telephone tapping infringes Article 21 and, where the tapped conversation is itself an exercise of speech, Article 19(1)(a). Because Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 left interception unchecked by procedure, the Court read binding safeguards into it — Home Secretary authorisation, defined time limits, and a standing review committee — until Parliament acted. This is the 1996 phone-tapping case, distinct from the two later PUCL matters on NOTA and candidate disclosure.