NEW DELHI: In a significant order, the Supreme Court on Thursday granted six weeks time to the Central government to frame guidelines for search and seizure of digital devices of any accused person, during interrogation, arrest or any related issues by the police and law enforcement agencies.
The top court was hearing a PIL filed by the Foundation for Media Professionals (FMP), requesting the court to establish safeguards and create a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) against any kind of unreasonable interference by law enforcement agencies against any accused person, during interrogation or any related issues.
A two-judge Bench of the Apex Court, headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and also comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, expressed concern over the Centre prolonging the framing of guidelines since 2021.
The Apex Court in its interim order directed that all the Central government agencies will strictly folllow to the CBI Manual at present for the search and seizure of digital devices until the Centre's fresh and official guidelines are established in this regard.
The court listed the matter for further hearing till February 6.
The Supreme Court in its last hearing on December 06, expressed its displeasure over the Centre's lackadaisical attitude for being late in framing guidelines to adhere to the search and seizure of personal digital devices by police and central agencies, during the raids of any accused persons.
The FMP had sought a direction from the top court to the concerned authorities and probe agencies to create comprehensive guidelines for search and seizure of digital devices.
Senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for the petitioners, had urged the top court for urgent need for guidelines and suggested that copies of necessary data on devices could be taken instead of seizing the entire content.
300 journalists were raided in relation to the recent Newsclick case, Ramakrishnan pointed out.
The petition has stated the increasing reliance on personal digital devices by media professionals for their journalistic work, which often involves handling “confidential information of public value, private correspondence with sources and whistle-blowers, and remote collaboration to break news stories in the public interest”.