- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Central Agencies Will Follow 2020...
Central Agencies Will Follow 2020 CBI Manual On Seizure Of Digital Evidence Till Guidelines Are Framed : ASG Tells Supreme Court
Awstika Das
14 Dec 2023 7:57 AM GMT
If the CBI manual is followed, at least the hash value of the devices will be known to the accused, one of the judges orally said.
The Supreme Court was assured on Thursday (December 14) that central agencies will follow the 2020 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Manual on digital evidence till the guidelines regarding the seizure of digital devices are finalised. Additional Solicitor General of India SV Raju made this undertaking before the court on behalf of the central agencies.This development comes after the...
The Supreme Court was assured on Thursday (December 14) that central agencies will follow the 2020 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Manual on digital evidence till the guidelines regarding the seizure of digital devices are finalised. Additional Solicitor General of India SV Raju made this undertaking before the court on behalf of the central agencies.
This development comes after the top court on multiple occasions stressed the need for more robust safeguards to protect the privacy and freedom of individuals, particularly media professionals, against arbitrary seizure of digital devices.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a PIL filed by the Foundation for Media Professionals and another public interest litigation petition filed by five academicians seeking guidelines for the seizure of personal electronic devices by investigating agencies. The academicians have submitted a set of draft guidelines to the court.
Today's hearing had to be adjourned after the law officer requested for more time. "We are deliberating over this and will be coming up with something. But it will take time because we have to consult the forensic laboratory experts and go through existing manuals, like the CBI manual and the Karnataka police manual."
"The problem," Justice Kaul replied, "Is the limbo in the interregnum period. Notice was issued(on the petition) in 2021. This has been going on for some time now. How long will you need? You have been holding meetings, but when will we have an outcome?"
When ASG Raju said that it would take the central government one month to do the 'bare minimum', Justice Kaul exclaimed, "Don't do the bare minimum. Do the maximum."
"We'll then need three months," ASG Raju told the judge, amid protests from the counsel for the petitioners.
"Are you willing to make a statement that you will in the meantime follow any of the existing manuals?" Justice Kaul asked the law officer, to which he assured that the CBI Manual and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would be followed.
Alleging a lack of interest on the government's part to come up with guidelines, Senior Advocate Nithya Ramakrishnan urged the court to issue interim directions. But,the bench refused. "Not at this stage," Justice Kaul said before adding, "These are not matters that can be finished off like this."
Justice Dhulia reasoned -
"If you are getting a hash value, you are getting something. 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, isn't it? That minimum..."
Ultimately, the bench pronounced, "Learned 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 that 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 AoR Prasanna appeared on behalf of the academics (Ram Ramaswamy and others v. Union of India).
Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal and AoR Rahul Narayan represented the Foundation for Media Professionals.
Case Details
Ram Ramaswamy and others v. Union of India| Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 138 of 2021, Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 395 of 2022
