The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed its displeasure over the Centre's "lackadaisical attitude" in framing guidelines for the search and seizure of personal digital devices by police and central agencies during raids.
"What have you (Centre) done so far? It has been more than two years in this particular PIL," remarked a two-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
The top court made these observations and remarks on the PIL filed by the Foundation for Media Professionals (FMP).
The petitioner, FMP, had requested the court to establish safeguards and create a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) against any kind of unreasonable professional and personal interference by law enforcement agencies.
The FMP also sought a directive from the top court to the concerned authorities and probe agencies to create comprehensive guidelines for the search and seizure of digital devices.
During the course of the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) V Raju, senior lawyer appearing for the Union of India, told the top court that a committee has been formed for the purpose, and the central government would require more time to formulate the guidelines.
He also assured the Supreme Court that the guidelines will be framed soon to regulate the seizure of phones or other digital devices belonging to individuals, particularly media professionals.
The bench, however, questioned the two-year delay by the government since the filing of the petition before it and said, “When did we issue notice? Some time frame has to be followed. Two years have passed.”
ASG assured the apex court that the guidelines would be ready by the next week.
"Get it done," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing to December 14.
Senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for the petitioners, 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.
She pointed out that 300 journalists were raided in relation to the recent Newsclick case.
During the last hearing, the top court remarked that there should be guidelines in place to govern the search and seizure of phones and other digital devices and media professionals could have confidential information or details about their sources on their devices.
The petition had 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”.
The petitioner has argued that it has a specific interest in advocating for adequate legal safeguards for the right to privacy in the digital space.