The Supreme Court on October 13 listed on November 2 a petition highlighting the concern expressed by the academia about the seizure of mobile phones and computers of the academia as “electronic evidence” by investigating agencies during raids.
The case was orally mentioned for early hearing by senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan and advocate Prasanna S ,appearing for Professors Ram Ramaswamy, Sujata Patel, M. Madhava Prasad, Mukul Kesavan and Deepak Malghan.
The academicians 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 issues raised by recent 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.
A recent letter from 16 media collectives to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) had urged the apex court to frame norms against the seizure of laptops and mobile phones of journalists on a whim.
In a recent hearing in the Ram Ramaswamy case, the Bench led by Justice Kaul remarked that the academicians had a right to protect their work.
“Today people live on this (personal devices),” Justice Kaul had observed orally.
The Ministry of Home Affairs, in its affidavit had said that while laptops, computers and mobiles were commonly used in contemporary society, criminals also “use these devices in the facilitation of their unlawful activities”.
“Today, virtually every crime has an electronic component in terms of computers and electronic technology being used to facilitate the crime,” the ministry had said.
It contended that these devices may contain a host of electronic evidence related to the crime under investigation, whether it was a conventional crime or a terrorist act. Technology allows crimes to be committed remotely with near anonymity on targets which are borderless. Devices were seized “simply as material evidence related to an offence”.
“No one can be treated above the law. An accused cannot claim the right to privacy when computers, tablets, laptops, mobile phones, etc, especially when it is used for committing crime or has vital information related to a crime under investigation… Digital devices have to be examined thoroughly by forensic experts,” the ministry had said.
