State, Through Special Cell, New Delhi vs Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru & Ors

The Supreme Court addressed the admissibility of intercepted conversations as evidence in a case involving a terrorist attack on the Parliament of India, under various statutes including Section 5 of the Telegraph Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. The Court emphasized that the interception must follow due process and that the trial judge should rule on the admissibility of evidence as objections arise, referencing the precedent set in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (2001) 3 SCC 1. The Court held that the intercepted conversations could be used as evidence, affirming the procedural requirements for such interceptions under the law.