4 days ago
Karnataka HC says police can't unnecessarily collect call detail records, it ‘violates right to privacy'
The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that a person's call detail records (CDRs) are private. It said police can't "unnecessarily" collect such information when there is no ongoing official investigation that requires it.
According to Bar and Bench, the judge said that if police are allowed to obtain CDRs that are not part of a lawful investigation, it would lead to a police state.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj made the observation while refusing to quash a criminal case filed against Sub-Inspector of Byatarayanapura Police Station Vidya VM. It was alleged that she had illegally collected the CDRs of a woman.
The Karnataka High Court held that call detail records of an individual are personal and private details and that unnecessarily collecting such details would violate the right to privacy.
"If police are allowed to obtain CDRs that are not part of a lawful investigation, it would lead to a police state," the judge was quoted by Bar and Bench as saying during the hearing.
"The power to obtain the CDR of any individual should only be exercised during a lawful investigation by the investigating officer," the court said before dismissing the police officer's plea.
As per the report, Vidya VM and some other co-accused persons, face a criminal case under Sections 354(D) (stalking), 409 (criminal breach of trust), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (word, gesture, act intended to insult modesty) of the Indian Penal Code, apart from Sections 66(D) (cheating by personation using computer resource) and 66(E) (privacy violation) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Vidya VM was reportedly accused of illegally obtaining the call detail records of a woman. The woman claimed that police officials illegally accessed her CDRs and shared them with others against whom she had filed another criminal case. The woman alleged that these CDRs were misused by the co-accused, who were troubling her.
The woman had then filed a private complaint against Vidya and others. In December 2024, a trial court summoned Vidya and others accused in the case. Vidya eventually approached the high court to quash the case against her.
Vidya's counsel, Advocate Satyanarayan Chalke, argued that the police officer had sought the CDRs in the discharge of her official duties.
However, the court declined to grant any relief, observing that unnecessarily acquiring the CDRs of a person would violate the right to privacy, as laid down in the Supreme Court's ruling in the Puttaswamy case.
