‘Can't risk violating privacy': court denies permission to Delhi excise policy case accused to inspect digital devices of co-accused

Indian Express

a day ago

Citing privacy concerns, a Delhi court Saturday rejected a plea moved by an accused in the corruption case linked to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam to inspect the digital devices of two other co-accused. The court pointed out that such an 'attempt to conduct a parallel investigation' could not be allowed.
The court was hearing a plea by Amandeep Singh Dhall, who is accused of conspiring in formulating the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22, to inspect the digital devices of co-accused Sameer Mahendru and Arun R Pillai. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is investigating the case, had found nothing incriminating in them, and both the co-accused objected to Dhall's demand.
'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,' said Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh in his order.
'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,' the judge added.
'The reason accused 9 (Dhall) inspects others' devices is to find something that he can use to build his defence. If he is not planning to use any content from those devices, then why does he need to see them? The purpose of inspecting the devices is to find evidence that can be used to support his defence, which poses a serious risk to accused 5 (Mahendru), accused 7 (Pillai) and others,' the court said.
Just because the two accused and others voluntarily disclosed their passwords to the investigating agency, they cannot be compelled to reveal them again for Dhall or anyone else, the court noted. It added that courts had to be 'especially cautious when digital devices containing sensitive, private or personal data' are examined and that such an inspection, which could violate privacy, can not be considered an 'unfettered right'.
The court was dealing with a question of the fundamental rights—the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial—of two sets of people conflicting with each other.
'Since the CBI could not find anything related to the dispute in those devices, allowing a parallel inquiry would be equivalent to conducting a separate trial for each device, which could be extremely risky for a criminal court to undertake. No such pre-trial inquiry should be permitted,' the court stated.
The CBI arrested Dhall in April 2023. The Delhi High Court granted Dhall bail in the money laundering case related to the alleged scam in September 2024, and later, the Supreme Court in October 2024 granted him bail in the CBI case.