Accessing phone details of then leader of opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley by the Delhi Police is not a breach of privilege, a house committee observed on Wednesday.
The privileges committee of the Rajya Sabha, however, said it was a "breach of privacy" and slammed Delhi Police officers for being "irresponsible" by sharing the e-mail ids and passwords with their subordinates.
The case came to light in 2013, when Delhi Police constable Arvind Dabas, who allegedly tried to get access Jaitley's Call Details Records (CDRs) was arrested. The matter was then referred to the privileges committee.
Dabas tried to get the CDRs of Jaitley, now union finance minister, by using the login of an assistant commissioner of police.
"The committee underscores the past precedents wherein even in the cases of alleged tapping of telephone or censoring of mail of members of parliament, have not been held to be breach of privileges..." the report tabled in Rajya Sabha said.
"...In committee's opinion, the act of accessing CDRs in an unauthorised manner, though sinister and punishable in the eyes of the law, does not seem to cause any hindrance or obstruction in the functioning of a member of parliament so as to attract breach of his parliamentary privileges. However, there is definitely a breach of right to privacy in such matters and for that remedies are available under the laws of land," the report said.
The committee, however, slammed Delhi Police officials for being "irresponsible" and sharing details of their email ids with subordinates that led to the incident.
"The committee also notes that such unauthorised access of the CDRs of Jaitley would not have been possible had the officers of Delhi Police not shared their e-mail Ids and passwords in the most casual and irresponsible manner with their subordinates," the report said.
"In this age of technological advances, where data protection is of paramount importance, approach of Delhi Police personnel in sharing their e-mail Ids and passwords with their subordinates even in good faith, in the opinion of the committee, besides being an intrusion in the right of privacy of individuals concerned, had been a big security hazard as it would have allowed the rogue elements within the establishment and other unscrupulous elements, including the terrorists, to play havoc with the security of the country," the report noted.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
