The Supreme Court on Friday told the Centre that personal information stored on mobiles and laptops seized as part of a crime investigation need to be protected as it asked the Centre to take an appropriate stand by next month on a petition demanding guidelines on preservation of information stored on digital devices seized by police and investigating agencies.
The Court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by former professor of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Ram Ramaswamy and four other academicians who demanded guidelines be framed for investigation agencies regarding search, seizure, examination and preservation of digital and electronic devices and their contents. In response, the Ministry of Home Affairs filed an affidavit in November last year stating that evidence of crime in the contemporary world is largely stored in mobile phones, laptops, tablets and such electronic devices and no accused can claim right to privacy in respect of such devices.
The bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh said, “All that is stored in these devices is personal information. People live on these devices. They have a right to protect it.” Not satisfied with the response of the Centre, the bench said, “By saying that this petition is not maintainable is not enough. You (Centre) look into the material they have provided along with international conventions and take a proper stand at the appropriate level. An officer of this level (Deputy Secretary, MHA who filed the affidavit) cannot look into this issue.” The Court sought the response in six weeks and directed the matter to be heard on September 26.
Additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju assured the Court that the Centre will take a relook on the matter. The affidavit by the Centre said, “When the digital device is searched and seized, the investigation officer cannot separate the chaff from the grain…No one can be treated above the law.An accused cannot claim right to privacy in respect of his digital devices like computer, laptop, tablets, mobile phones, etc, especially when it is used for committing crime or has vital information or evidence related to crime under investigation.”
Raju told the Court that “police” and “public order” being State subjects, notices must go to states as they should be heard on this issue. The Court told the law officer that the purpose behind entertaining the petition was not to call all states but to know the view of Centre. ASG Raju further stated that digital evidence is seized as per procedure provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Information and Technology Act 2000 and the entire petition is based on apprehensions with nothing to show that fundamental rights of petitioners has been breached in any manner.
The petitioners represented by senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan and advocate S Prasanna that the issue raised in the PIL is a matter of the moment as the electronic devices of several academicians and authors of repute have been seized in the recent past under the guise of investigation. She referred to a question raised in Parliament in August last year where a question was raised on the reported seizure of electronic devices during investigations and whether any guidelines exist to regulate such seizures.
In response, the Centre claimed that no such data is centrally maintained as crime investigation and prosecution rests with respective state governments. On the issue of guidelines, the Centre referred to this pending petition before the top court.
