The High Court of Karnataka has announced that action can be initiated against the Investigating Officers (IOs) for cancellation of duty or other proceedings, if they are found to be equipped with a third party, the data received from electronic devices which can be used for any Can also affect the privacy of the person. Connected with investigation in criminal cases.
The court also declared that it is the responsibility of the authorities to protect the information or data received from electronic gadgets such as smartphones, computers, laptops and storage units, including cloud-based storage, email accounts, etc.
“Disclosure, in public or otherwise court proceedings, must be determined by the judge of the court concerned by passing a judicial order. In any case such details or data cannot be provided by the investigating officer to any third party during the investigation without written permission by the court concerned.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj made these comments in his March 12 ruling, bypassing the trial court’s order to allow the party organizer and one of the accused in the 2018 drug case to undergo a polygraph test and provide passwords for their gadgets and e-mails. gave instructions. police.
The court held that investigating officers should be held responsible for protecting privacy because the recovered data may contain many personal information that may or may not be necessary for investigation, and because strict compulsalisation of personally stored data may not occur Is or is not personal those gadgets.
The court, however, held that the use of data obtained from password-protected electronic gadgets would not amount to a violation of a person’s right to privacy in a criminal case, as the use of such data by police would be within the exceptions made by Supreme. Court in the case of Justice Puttaswamy on the right to privacy
What the investigating agency can do If the accused persons refuse to disclose the gadget and the password to access the information, the court said that the investigating agency would be at liberty to engage a particular agency to hack the password, Must pass code or biometric, and accused cannot. Choose the methodology used by the investigative agency to access information in gadgets or emails.
Also, the court stated that the investigating agency was at liberty to block access to email accounts and gadgets, by changing the password to ensure that no one other than the designated officials had access to them.
When manufacturers of gadgets or service providers were not providing the facility to open gadgets and email accounts, the court could allow hacking into gadgets and email accounts on an application filed by the investigating agency.
.
Add Comment