Reply To ACB Notice For Mobile Phone: KTR goes into defensive mode; says he no longer has old phone
In response to the notice issued by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) to submit the mobile phone used during the Formula E race, the BRS Working President KT Rama Rao on Wednesday said that this demand was a violation of fundamental rights and personal privacy as per the Constitution and that he no longer has the old phones used in the past.
KTR clarified that he had changed his mobile phone in the first quarter of 2024 and that he no longer had the old phone that he had used in the past. KTR revealed on this occasion that he had not used any other electronic items other than the phone. The BRS Working President KTR submitted a reply to the investigating agency on Wednesday.
KTR revealed that the notice given under Section 94 of the BNSS did not mention the reason or intention why he had to submit the cell phone and other electronic devices used between November 2021 and December 2023. He clarified that all the necessary official records of the consultations related to the investigation of the Formula Race case were with the Municipal Administration Department of the state government. He said that all these are decisions taken in the capacity of the Minister of Municipal Administration and Urban Development.
KTR stated that even though the allegations against him in the complaint did not mention or relate to the electronic devices used in the past, asking them to be produced is a violation of the fundamental rights granted to him as a citizen by the Constitution. He reminded that the basis that the electronic devices he used were necessary for the investigation of the case was not mentioned anywhere.
KTR stated that if electronic devices have to be collected as part of the investigation, the rules and regulations of the Supreme Court must be strictly followed. KTR reminded that the Supreme Court has stated that strict rules should be followed to prevent the electronic devices collected in special circumstances from being tampered with by the officials of the investigation agencies. Along with personal privacy, it was stated that the Right against Self-incrimination, which means that it is not right to use the collected information against a citizen without giving a proper reason, is very important, and these precautions were suggested to ensure that they are not violated.
KTR revealed that he had also made it clear to the ED, which was the respondent in that case, not to use the citizen's mobile phone or copy the information in it. He stated that many cases of electronic items that were part of the investigation by various investigative agencies are pending in court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
TN ADGP suspension: SC transfers abduction case probe to CB-CID
The Supreme Court on Thursday transferred the probe in the alleged abduction case in which Tamil Nadu Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) H M Jayaram was suspended to the state Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID), after the state government agreed to it. Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Tamil Nadu, conveyed this to a bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan. 'In deference of what has fallen from Your Lordships, we will entrust it to the CB CID, which is the highest investigating body in the state,' Dave told the court after it asked him to take instructions on whether the state was willing to transfer to probe from the local police to some other agency. 'After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that petitioner would have his remedies to assail the order of suspension. However, looking into the controversial circumstances in which the impugned order came to be passed, we are of the view that investigation of this case may be handed over to CB CID. In fact Mr Dave submits on instruction that the state would have no objection to such transfer or investigation,' the bench said in its order. The Supreme Court was hearing a challenge to a June 16 order by a single judge of the Madras High Court that asked the police to arrest Jayaram in connection with the investigation in the alleged abduction case. Jayaram has been accused of abetting the abduction of a minor boy by allowing his vehicle to be used by a group of people who sought to forcibly separate an inter-caste couple. On Thursday, the Supreme Court also set aside the high court 'direction…to secure and take action against the petitioner…' IPS officer. It also asked the Madras High Court Chief Justice 'to assign' the matter pending before the single bench 'and other related/connected numbers…to another bench'. Though the high court directed Jayaram's arrest, the Tamil Nadu government had informed the Supreme Court on Wednesday that he was not arrested. The bench then sought to know why he was suspended if he had not been arrested. On Thursday, Dave told the court that he 'was not suspended because of the orders of the High Court. He was suspended under' the relevant rules of the 'All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, which empowers the…disciplinary authority to place a member of the service (IPS in this case) in respect of whom or against whom an investigation or enquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge is pending.' Dave added that 'presently the investigation is underway and depending on the report of the investigation, a decision would be taken regarding continuance or otherwise of the suspension order of the petitioner'.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Karnataka promises security for theatres if Kamal Haasan's Thug Life releases
The Karnataka government has told the Supreme Court that it would provide security to theatres if actor Kamal Haasan's film 'Thug Life' is released in the state. The apex court, meanwhile, said if any threat is issued against screening of the film, the state government will take action against divisive elements.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Madhya Pradesh HC allows WhatsApp chats as divorce evidence, says privacy cannot override fair trial
BHOPAL: The Madhya Pradesh high court at Gwalior has ruled that WhatsApp messages between spouses can be used as evidence in matrimonial cases, even if collected without the other partner's consent. The judgment was delivered by Justice Ashish Shroti in Miscellaneous Petition No. 3395 of 2023, filed by a woman challenging a Family Court order. The Family court had earlier allowed her estranged husband to present private WhatsApp conversations as part of a divorce case. The couple had married in December 2016 and had a daughter in October 2017. The husband later filed for divorce, alleging cruelty and adultery. To support his claims, he submitted WhatsApp messages allegedly retrieved via a hidden application on his wife's phone. These chats appeared to suggest an extramarital relationship. In response, the wife filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. She also objected to the use of the chats, arguing that they were collected in breach of her privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and violated provisions of the Information Technology Act. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Switch to UnionBank Rewards Card UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo Her legal team referred to various past rulings where courts disallowed illegally obtained personal communications, such as Neha Garg v. Vibhor Garg (2021) and Rayala M. Bhuvaneswari v. Nagaphanender Rayala (2008). However, the High Court rejected her objections, stating that under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, courts are allowed to accept any material that helps in settling family disputes—even if it would normally be inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act. Justice Shroti pointed out that Family Courts follow relaxed rules of evidence due to the private and sensitive nature of matrimonial issues. He cited Supreme Court judgments, including R M Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973) and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005), to show that evidence obtained unlawfully can still be considered if it is relevant and genuine. While acknowledging the significance of the right to privacy, the court clarified that it is not absolute and must be balanced with the right to a fair trial. Justice Shroti stated that when two rights under Article 21 are in conflict—privacy versus fair trial—the latter must prevail in the interest of justice. He also referred to Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which generally protects marital communication, but allows exceptions in cases of legal disputes between spouses. The court noted that several High Courts, including those in Delhi, Bombay, and Rajasthan, have supported the use of digital records in family matters. Justice Shroti made it clear that accepting evidence does not mean it is proven—it must still be verified. He advised Family Courts to use safeguards such as confirming authenticity, holding in-camera hearings when needed, and maintaining decorum. The judgment also clarified that admitting illegally obtained evidence does not protect the person from possible civil or criminal action. The court dismissed the woman's petition and upheld the Family Court's April 2023 order, reaffirming that relevance, not the method of collection, determines admissibility. The ruling concluded that blocking such evidence would go against the intent of the Family Courts Act.
