|
The Supreme Court has termed the Ghaziabad Polices attempt to obtain extensive digital data of journalist Abhishek Upadhyay in connection with an alleged road-rage incident as an overkill.
The Court observed that while investigative agencies were entitled to probe an offence, the manner in which such powers were exercised could not become a means to access a persons private digital life. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi quashed a notice issued by the Ghaziabad Police to Upadhyay seeking his call records and other digital data for a period extending months before the alleged road-rage incident. The Court also continued the interim protection from arrest granted to Upadhyay, while leaving open the issues relating to the alleged road-rage case. During the hearing, the Court questioned the necessity of seeking such a wide range of digital information for investigating an alleged road-rage incident. That appears to be an overkill, the Court observed. A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that there had to be a balance between the States power to investigate and an individuals right to privacy, particularly when the person concerned was an investigative journalist. If we keep complete liberty (to investigate), the Court observed, the right of an investigative journalist also needs to be balanced. The Court also clarified that it was not questioning the existence of statutory powers available to the police to investigate offences under the IT Act. We are not against any rule. (We are concerned with the) manner of exercise of the power, the bench said. The Uttar Pradesh government defended the police action, referring to the Information Technology Rules and submitting that the authorities were empowered to conduct an investigation. The bench, however, distinguished between the existence of such a power and the manner in which it was being exercised. The Court also questioned the breadth of the demand for digital records since June, particularly when the allegation related to a road-rage incident occurred in the month of August. You are asking the service provider for his call records for four months for a road-rage (incident) during June. We would understand if there is some conspiracy, the bench observed. (ANI)
|
