Satya Prakash
New Delhi, November 12
Taking exception to the Centre not filing its response to a PIL seeking guidelines on seizure and preservation of personal digital devicessuch as cell phones and laptops by probe agencies, the Supreme Court has asked it to file its reply in two weeks.
“The Counter affidavit which is still not filed, should be filed within two weeks, whereafter it will be taken on record only subject to costs of Rs 25,000 to be deposited in this Court. Copy of the order be immediately issued to the counsel for the respondent(s),” a Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said on Friday.
The Bench ndash; which also included Justice Abhay S Oka—posted the PIL for further hearing on December 5.
This is the second time that the top court has expressed dissatisfaction with the Centre on the issue.Noting that the Centre’s counter affidavit was incomplete, it hadon August 5asked it to file a fresh affidavit.
“Saying it’s (PIL is) not maintainable etc is not enough. Please look into it yourself. I don’t think an officer of this level can look into it,” the Bench had told Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who had said a proper reply will be filed.
The top court had in March 2021 issued notice to the Centre on the PIL filed by Ram Ramaswamy, former JNU professor, and four others seeking guidelines for probe agencies with regard to seizure, examination and preservation of personal digital and electronic devices and the content contained therein.
Many persons from whom devices were seized in various cases in the recent past were from academia or reputed authors, they added.
“hellip;But these have personal content and we have to protect this. People live on thishellip;We are not satisfied with the counter-affidavit and we seek a new and proper reply with references to international practices as well,” the Bench had said.
“The academic community does and stores its research and writing in the electronic or digital medium, and the threat of damage, distortion, loss or premature exposure of academic or literary work in the event of seizure of electronic devices is considerable,” the PIL contended.
Assailing the “entirely unguided power” exercised by probe agencies to take control of devices that contain much, if not all, of a citizen’s personal and professional life, the petitioners said such power was required to be civilised by the top court.
If the data and research were tampered with or damaged, the loss to research in the sciences and social sciences was considerable and often irreplaceable, they contended, highlighting the fact that there was no procedure or guideline stipulated in any law or even in most police manuals of a more appropriate to the recovery of electronic/digital material, which was distinct from the recovery of other kinds of material.
“The CBDT manual has some reference to this, but neither the CBI nor the NIA appear to have any procedural protocol in this regard,” they pointed out.
