Latest news with #PhonePePrivateLimited
Indian Express
15-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Karnataka HC dismisses PhonePe's plea against police notice, says privacy not a shield against lawful investigation
Noting that 'confidentiality must coexist with accountability', the Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition by PhonePe Private Limited against a police notice issued to the financial service company in connection with the investigation in a 2022 online sports betting case. 'The submissions of the petitioner's counsel that information that is to be kept confidential need not be divulged, cannot be accepted. The protection of consumer privacy cannot eclipse the lawful imperative of investigating officers to secure evidence and take the investigation to its logical conclusion,' said a single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna in the order dated April 29. The police issued the notice on December 7, 2022, to PhonePe to provide details based on a complaint from a resident of the Chikkamagaluru district, who alleged that he lost funds while transacting through several payment gateways for cricket betting. The notice under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) directed PhonePe to furnish transaction details of certain users. PhonePe's counsel argued that the company is merely an intermediary under the IT Act and that neither the company nor its employees are implicated in the case. The counsel further said the Bankers' Books Evidence Act and the Payment and Settlement Systems Act prohibit the company from disclosing information. The company contended that the investigating officer cannot summon documents or information through a notice without a directive from a court. The bench observed that as per Section 87 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, information would have to be given within 72 hours of the notice from an investigating officer. Citing previous judgments of the high courts of Kerala, Madras, and Bombay, it observed that the laws cited by PhonePe would not be stretched to immunise an institution from investigation. 'The duty to protect data must yield, where public interest and criminal investigation intersect,' the court noted. 'Conventional crimes have receded, and new age crimes have sprung in large numbers. The new age crimes are cyber crimes – the clandestine modern offences… while privacy as contended by the petitioner should be maintained, it cannot be wielded as a shield against lawful investigation,' the court added, while rejecting PhonePe's plea.
New Indian Express
14-05-2025
- New Indian Express
No secrets from law, Karnataka HC raps PhonePe on lost money
BENGALURU: Noting that privacy should be maintained but cannot be wielded as a shield against lawful investigation, High Court dismissed the petition filed by PhonePe Private Limited, questioning the summons issued by CEN police of Bengaluru Rural District to provide details of transactions of the complainant, who lost money after paying through several payment gateways for cricket betting. 'The submissions of the petitioner's counsel that information that is to be kept confidential need not be divulged, cannot be accepted. The protection of consumer privacy cannot eclipse the lawful imperative of investigating officers to secure evidence and take the investigation to its logical conclusion. Confidentiality must coexist with accountability,' said Justice M Nagaprasanna, rejecting the petition filed by PhonePe Private Limited. It further said that today, conventional crimes have receded and new-age crimes have sprung up in large numbers. New-age crimes are cybercrimes, modern offences which demand a swift, and effective response. The police must be empowered within the limits of law to unearth digital footprints that could otherwise vanish. Therefore, while privacy as contended by the petitioner should be maintained, it cannot be wielded as a shield against lawful investigation, the court said. CEN police issued summons dated December 7, 2022, to PhonePe to provide details after receiving a complaint from Prashanth, a resident of Chikkamagaluru district, that he lost funds while transacting through several payment gateways for cricket betting. However, PhonePe contended that it is protected under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, and cannot divulge the information.
Time of India
13-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Karnataka HC rejects PhonePe's plea against information sharing
Bengaluru: The high court has rejected a petition by PhonePe Private Limited challenging a notice from Bengaluru cyber police seeking sharing of information."The duty to protect data must yield where public interest and criminal investigation intersect. The protection of consumer privacy cannot eclipse the lawful imperative of investigating officers to secure evidence and take investigation to its logical conclusion. Confidentiality must coexist with accountability," the court said. PhonePe had contested the notice issued on Dec 7, 2022, under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The company argued against providing confidential transaction details of registered users without a complete investigation being conducted first. They claimed status as an intermediary under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, stating that the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) was the actual owner of the Unified Payment Interface (UPI) company maintained it was merely a system provider governed by the Payment and Settlement Systems Act-2007. They argued that the Bankers Books Evidence Act- 1891, prohibited sharing confidential customer information, and noted that neither the company nor its employees were accused in the countered that they possess authority to request information for fair investigation of cyber crimes, citing the central govt guidelines under Section 87 of the IT Act. They alleged PhonePe violated guidelines by safeguarding merchants involved in cricket M Nagaprasanna, examining the case involving a complaint about Rs 6,150 lost through cricket betting applications, noted that CrPC Section 91 authorises summoning documents while acknowledging limitations under other court concluded that statutory safeguards cannot shield institutions from investigation when criminal activity is suspected, emphasising that modern cyber crimes require swift responses, allowing police to uncover digital evidence within legal boundaries while balancing privacy concerns with investigative necessities.
