Follow CBI manual on seizure of electronic devices: SC to agencies
PDP questions BJP ‘blunders’ in Kashmir in mouthpiece
The court said the procedure under the manual should be followed till the Centre brings out new guidelines in six weeks; the petitioners have argued that the personal electronic devices cannot be seized and kept in custody indefinitely he Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the Centre to adhere to directives in the CBI Manual to protect the integrity of personal data stored in electronic devices seized during searches conducted, especially, on members of the academia and media.
Appearing before a Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan and Sudhanshu Dhulia, Additional SolicitorGeneral S.V. Raju said this would mean training the personnel of the other agencies in the CBI’s manual. “Train them! They are trained for other things. Why can’t they be trained to do this?” Justice Kaul asked.
Senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan and advocate Prasanna S., for petitioners, said the CBI Manual may not extensively protect the corruption of data or malicious implanting of files in confiscated devices. Ms. Ramakrishnan said the manual only
Tmandated the sharing of the “hash value” or the unique electronic fingerprint of the data in a seized device.
“But you’re getting something now. Till today you did not even get a hash value. If they follow the CBI Manual, you will get at least the minimum, the hash value,” Justice Dhulia told Ms. Ramakrishnan.
The court said the procedure under the CBI Manual would be followed till the Centre brings out new guidelines in six weeks. The Centre said meetings are under way on the framing of the guidelines. Some of the existing materials being considered including the CBI Manual itself, suggestions from the petitioners in the case and the Karnataka Cyber Crime Investigation Manual. Mr. Raju said the guidelines would take a maximum of three months to finalise. The court listed the case on February 6.
The case would come up before a different Bench in February as Justice Kaul is retiring on December 25.
For several hearings,
the government has managed a certain air of ambiguity about the new guidelines, saying it was still in the works. The Bench headed by Justice Kaul has been hearing the case for nearly two years.
The petitioners, Professors Ram Ramaswamy, Sujata Patel, M. Madhava Prasad, Mukul Kesavan and Deepak Malghan, have argued that personal electronic devices cannot be seized and kept in the custody of probe agencies indefinitely. At most, they could take copies of the material or content in the devices. The lawyer said they have separately given their suggestions for the proposed guidelines.
“This is an immediate issue. Some 300 devices have been seized from around 90 journalists… How will you feel if someone comes to your house and seizes and reads your letters… This is a complete assault on journalistic freedom,” Ms. Ramakrishnan had argued.
The academics have contended that the seizure
of their personal digital devices amounted to a violation of their right to privacy and they run the risk of losing their life’s work when police carry off their computers and drives after a raid. The case resonates with issues raised by recent the Delhi Police raids on journalists and activists in the NewsClick case.
“Members of a civilised democratic society have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Privacy is not the singular concern of journalists or social activists. Every citizen of India ought to be protected against violations of privacy. It is this expectation which enables us to exercise our choices, liberties, and freedom,” the Supreme Court had held in its judgment in the Pegasus case in October 2021.
The Union Home Ministry, however, maintained that while laptops, computers and mobiles were commonly used in contemporary society, criminals also “use these devices in the facilitation of their unlawful activities”.
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) mouthpiece, Speak Up, on Thursday launched a scathing attack on the Centre, just days after the Supreme Court upheld the move to end Jammu and Kashmir’s special constitutional position.
In an article titled, “From citizens to slaves”, the mouthpiece said a government strives to empower and enrich, whereas an occupation’s aim is to disempower, dispossess, and exploit. “But when you find yourself asking this question over and over, it’s quite possible you already know the answer,” it said.
Referring to Home Minister Amit Shah’s speech in Parliament after the SC upheld the Centre’s move to end J&K’s special status in 2019, it said, “Mr. Shah found himself mourning the loss of Pakistanoccupied Kashmir. Instead of ruminating over Jawaharlal Nehru’s “blunders”, the BJP needs to ask themselves what they have done for Indian Kashmir since they came to power in 2014.”