“When will the output come…”, SC to Centre on guidelines on seizure of electronic devices

The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to come with an outcome regarding framing of guidelines in connection with the seizure of electronic devices such as phones and laptops by investigating agencies. Reports ETV Bharat's Sumit Saxena

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked Centre’s counsel that there have been discussions but when will an outcome come regarding framing of guidelines in connection with the seizure of electronic devices such as phones and laptops by investigating agencies. The Centre’s counsel assured the apex court that central agencies will follow the CBI manual on digital evidence till the guidelines regarding the seizure of digital devices are finalised.

Additional solicitor general (ASG) S V Raju, representing the investigative agencies, submitted before a bench comprising justices S K Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia that regarding the guidelines the concerned authorities are coming out with something and it will take time as they have to take consultation from the forensics laboratory and other experts also.

Raju said there is a Karnataka police manual, which contains details, and there is also a CBI manual, and stressed that it will take time to come out with guidelines. The counsel, representing one of the petitioners, said that they have already gone through the material and their suggestions incorporate inputs from the CBI’s manual.

Justice Kaul said, “Look, the problem is this…how long makes a difference, it has been on for some time now. The writ petition is of 2021 and that is why they are concerned. How much time do you think it will require? You have been holding meetings but when will the output come”.

Raju replied, “One month’s time”. Justice Kaul said do not make it minimum, make it maximum. Raju urged the court to grant three months’ time to come out with the guidelines. Justice Dhulia smiled at Raju’s submissions.

Justice Kaul asked Raju, “Are you willing to make a statement in the meantime that you will follow one of the existing manuals at least, which is the existing manual you will follow?” Raju replied that they will follow the CBI manual and the CrPC.

The petitioners’ counsel said they are delaying it and urged the court to issue interim directions. But the bench refused saying that not at this stage. Justice Kaul said these are matters that cannot be finished off like this.

Justice Dhulia told the petitioners’ counsel, “If you are getting a hash value, you are getting something. The CBI Manual touches upon this. Today, you will not even get your hash value. Now, if they follow the CBI manual, at least you will get a hash value, won't it? That minimum..."

After hearing submissions, the bench, in its order, said, "Learned additional solicitor additional solicitor general submits that in the conspectus of the existing CBI Manual and the Karnataka Cybercrime Investigation Manual and the suggestions put forth by petitioners, a number of discussions have been held, and the suggestions put forth by the petitioners’ number of discussions have been held. And, he will come up with something within six weeks. In the meantime, he assures the court that for the time being, at least the CBI manual will be followed by all the central government agencies. List on February 6."

ASG Raju, in response to this order, raised concerns over having to train other agencies. Justice Kaul firmly said, "Train them then. They are trained to do other things. Why can't they be trained for this?"

Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan and Advocate Prasanna appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

The apex court was hearing two petitions, including one filed by ‘The Foundation for Media Professionals, seeking comprehensive guidelines for the search and seizure of digital devices by investigating agencies.

On November 7, the Supreme Court asked the Centre to put in place guidelines on the seizure of electronic devices like phones and laptops of individuals, particularly media professionals.

The apex court termed the matter serious and conveyed its concern to additional solicitor general (ASG) S V Raju, representing the Centre, in connection with sweeping powers of probe agencies. Justice Kaul had then observed, “Mr Raju, I find it very difficult to accept that some kind of an all-within power which the agencies have, this is very, very dangerous I think”.

Other key Supreme Court's judgements