The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia of the Supreme Court observed that appropriate guidelines must be created for the search and seizure of digital devices by journalists in order to prevent abuse by investigative agencies. The PIL sought protections against “unreasonable interference” by law enforcement agencies and sought to create comprehensive guidelines for the search and seizure of digital devices.
The Centre has been given a month to produce guidelines controlling seizures of this kind by the bench of the highest court, which consists of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia. The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by the Foundation of Media Professionals.
“As you can see, these are media professionals who will have contacts and sources on their phones. Thus, some rules have to exist. This is serious,” Justice Kaul said in an oral statement that was included in the report. According to Justice Dhulia, “they (investigating agencies) are supposed to give you the hash value (of the seized device).”
In his appearance on behalf of the Central government, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju noted that there were “several complicated, legal issues that are required to be examined.” Senior counsel Siddharth Agarwal, however, brought up the fact that hundreds of journalists’ digital devices—including personal ones—had been seized when he spoke on behalf of the petitioners. “The concerns brought up in this petition are extremely important because there are no rules governing what can be accessed, when it can be seized, or how personal, health, or financial data is protected.”
It has been claimed in that petition that investigating authorities are now acting with unchecked authority when it comes to seizing digital devices that hold “much, if not all, of a citizen’s personal and professional life.” The petitioners further stated that, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s orders, such seizures must be carried out in a civilized manner.
Judge Kaul declared, “You have to set guidelines,” adding, “We have however made it clear to the learned ASG that appropriate guidelines must be in place to safeguard the interests of media professionals and that there must be a balancing of interests.” We want the knowledgeable ASG to work on this and get back to us on this matter. This is especially true given that many consider privacy to be a fundamental right.
The petition further stated that a number of the people from whom these devices had recently been taken were either well-known authors or members of the scholarly community. The Central government’s counter-affidavit was deemed to be inadequate and unsatisfactory by the Supreme Court, which requested that it submit a new response to their case in August 2022. In November of same year, the Central government was also ordered to pay ₹25,000 in costs by the Court for failing to file the aforementioned reply.
There have also been prior searches on other media outlets and equipment seizures. Letters from eighteen media organizations to India’s President and Chief Justice brought attention to the confiscation and searches of digital devices, expressing grave concerns about the matter.
We acknowledge that this letter is intended not only for the Chief Justice of India but also for the incumbent, who has stated both inside and outside the court that India’s freedoms will remain secure as long as journalists are able to carry out this responsibility “without being chilled by attempts to stifle free speech.”
