According to the findings that have come to light, the state’s intelligence apparatus reportedly kept vigil on over 600 people after the BRS won the 2018 Assembly elections for the second term.
Published Jun 22, 2025 | 7:00 PM ⚊ Updated Jun 22, 2025 | 7:00 PM
K Chandrashekar Rao. (X)
Synopsis: The allegations and evidence of phone tapping by the BRS while it was in power in Telangana raise several questions about the misuse of power by elected representatives. The use of government machinery and bureaucrats for illegal surveillance further taints the legitimacy of the executive.
Even if political parties come to power with a massive mandate, they cannot govern as they please. Yet, some leaders forget this, believing that they can get away with anything.
The developments unfolding in Telangana indicate that the leadership of the BRS, which came to power twice with overwhelming support of the people before facing defeat in its third attempt, had also fallen into this mindset.
Of late, it has become increasingly common for governments to register cases and investigate irregularities and corruption by previous dispensations. In Telangana, a serious allegation emerged that the BRS was engaged in phone tapping and surveillance activities after it came to power in 2018, which allegedly continued unabated until its defeat in 2023.
A Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the incumbent Telangana government unearthed startling details indicating large-scale misuse of police surveillance during the previous regime. The allegations stained the BRS, a party that had led a prolonged struggle for the statehood of Telangana and governed the newly formed state for its initial ten years.
According to the findings that have come to light, the state’s intelligence apparatus reportedly kept vigil on over 600 people after the BRS won the 2018 Assembly elections for the second term — winning 88 of the 119 seats and ruling the state till 2023.
Rather than using the police system to curb crime and ensure law and order, the then-ruling party allegedly misused it to monitor the movements and eavesdrop on the conversations of political opponents and other individuals.
Under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, tapping a suspect’s phone calls requires prior approval from the Ministry of Home Affairs. Since phone tapping invades a citizen’s right to privacy, it should only be permitted in exceptional cases, such as when there is a threat to national security or public order.
However, it appears that the BRS government paid no heed to these legal safeguards and ordered mass surveillance at will.
What is more troubling is that the list of tapped phones reportedly included not just rival politicians but also people from other walks of life, including journalists and judges. However, the big question remains: How did these individuals pose a threat to national security or social order?
It is said that the then-ruling party ordered tapping of phones to pre-empt political conspiracies and thwart the Opposition’s efforts against it. Despite denying such surveillance in public statements, two incidents strongly indicate the contrary.
One: The recent revelation by former MLA Gone Prakash Rao — that former chief minister K Chandrashekar Rao had in his possession audio clips regarding the alleged MLAs-poaching conspiracy at a farmhouse near Hyderabad — was a clear admission that phone tapping did take place.
Two: Senior BRS leader and former corporation chairman V Prakash admitted in a YouTube interview that a top leader in the government had told him not to call him since his phone was being tapped.
The paranoia in political circles was such that there were rumours of phone tapping of even blood relatives of the then-chief minister, reportedly under the pretext of suspected Naxalite links. These instances alone offer enough evidence that large-scale phone tapping did take place.
The SIT collected evidence that several Opposition leaders and influential figures from various sectors were also under surveillance. Summons have been issued to many of them to appear for questioning. A few MPs and two Union ministers are also said to be among those summoned for inquiry.
A 2013 report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, set up following a complaint by BJP leader late Arun Jaitley, stated that surveillance of elected representatives requires prior approval from either the Lok Sabha Speaker or the relevant Legislative Assembly Speaker.
This recommendation was accepted by Parliament. If these protocols were ignored in Telangana, it raises serious concerns about the rule of law during the BRS tenure.
So far, four police officers have been arrested and later released on bail in connection with the phone tapping case. Prabhakar Rao, the then head of the Special Intelligence Bureau (SIB), who was accused of playing a central role in the operation, was in the US for some time and is now appearing for questioning by the SIT after the intervention by the Supreme Court.
However, due to his lack of cooperation, the SIT is considering approaching the apex court to revoke the interim relief granted to him and allow custodial interrogation.
Interestingly, Rao claims that he merely followed orders. However, the question emerges whether executing illegal or unethical directives is part of an officer’s duty. Why did this senior official fail to remember that his loyalty is to the law, not to his political masters?
Let us reflect for a moment: Even if a chief minister wanted to keep tabs on political opponents, who ultimately pays the price? Officers who blindly carry out such orders without written directives are the ones facing legal and career consequences — not the politicians who issued them.
Elected governments change every five years. Civil servants, on the other hand, serve for decades on public salaries. Their primary responsibility is to uphold the rule of law and alert elected leaders if they stray from it. Unfortunately, it is a tragedy that we now live in an era where sections of the bureaucracy are showing no hesitation in pleasing their masters, knowing fully well that it would defame them in the end.
The Telangana phone tapping scandal is a glaring example of this dangerous trend. It remains to be seen whether the bureaucratic system will learn any lessons from this experience.
(Views expressed are personal. Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
