[Liquor Policy] Accused Can't Inspect Digital Devices Resulting In Privacy Violation Of Co-Accused Or Third Party: Delhi Court
A Delhi Court today observed that an accused cannot request for inspection of digital device belonging to co accused or other individuals, containing private or third party data, without justified reasons as the same amounts to a fishing expedition and can violate their right to privacy.Special judge Dig Vinay Singh of Rouse Avenue Courts observed that before requesting such inspection which...
A Delhi Court today observed that an accused cannot request for inspection of digital device belonging to co accused or other individuals, containing private or third party data, without justified reasons as the same amounts to a fishing expedition and can violate their right to privacy.
Special judge Dig Vinay Singh of Rouse Avenue Courts observed that before requesting such inspection which is opposed by the owners, the accused must demonstrate specific and concrete relevance, adding that vague or broad searches should not be permitted.
“Requesting inspection without a specific or justified reason, or simply hoping to find something useful, amounts to a fishing expedition,” the Court said.
The development ensued in connection with the corruption case related to the alleged liquor policy scam, where an accused- Amandeep Singh Dhall was permitted to inspect 20 mobile and digital devices that were not relied upon, belonging to co accused Mahandru and Arun R. Pillai as well as a witness and a third party- who was neither a witness nor an accused.
All four individuals objected to the inspection, citing privacy concerns. The two accused also took the ground of fair trial.
Mahandru objected to the inspection on the ground that it was an unreasonable demand of Dhall to ask for blanket access to his phone, including WhatsApp chats, without specifying and satisfying which parts were relevant or what he was seeking.
It was argued that his phone contained highly sensitive business data and feared breaches of family privacy and safety.
Both Mahandru and Pillai requested that since the investigation was complete and the documents were categorized as unrelied, their continued custody by the investigating agency was unnecessary and thus, their mobile phones or digital devices, which contained confidential, personal and third-party data, must be returned.
Denying inspection to Dhall, the Court observed that all Dhall wanted to undertake was nothing but a parallel investigation or roving & fishing inquiry.
It added that Dhall was seeking to build a defence that other accused persons at the relevant time did some acts of commission and omission, and then present an argument that the investigating agency- CBI, had discriminated against him.
The judge said that once the accused and other two individuals refused to permit such an inspection citing privacy concerns, they cannot be forced to disclose their passwords or reveal the contents of their mobile or other devices to Dhall.
“Merely because A-5, A-7, and others voluntarily disclosed their passwords to the investigating agency, they cannot be asked to reveal them again for A-9 or anyone else,” the Court said.
It added that it seemed that Dhall was attempting to conduct a parallel investigation or inquiry to argue that the CBI did not thoroughly investigate or deliberately failed to collect all evidence, or intentionally ignored many things in others' devices.
“No such parallel investigation should be allowed by any accused, as this would otherwise lead to an endless cycle of such proceedings. After all, every accused in a criminal trial claims that he was prejudiced by an unfair investigation concerning him and by the omission of facts that may have favoured him,” the Court said.
“Requesting inspection without a specific or justified reason, or simply hoping to find something useful, amounts to a fishing expedition. Such a broad, unfocused search without clear limits or scope amounts to a roving inquiry. It not only wastes the court's time but also risks violating privacy rights and could amount to harassment or oppression of the device owners,” it added.
As the Court refused to permit Dhall to conduct inspection of the digital devices, it directed that the mobile phone and other items belonging to Pillai and Mahandru, which were not relied upon, be returned to them.
Counsel for accused Sameer Mahandru: Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Anubhav Garg, Ms. Liza Arora, Mr. Yash Raj Mehran, Advocates