The petitioners in the case are, former JNU professor and researcher,Ram Ramaswamy; professor at Savitribai Phule Pune University, Sujata Patel; professor of Cultural Studies at the English and Foreign Languages University, Madhava Prasad; professor of Modern Indian history at Jamia Millia Islamia, Mukul Kesavan and theoretical ecological economist Deepak Malghan.
It is their case that the entirely unguided power exercised by investigative agencies to take control of devices that “contain much if not all of a citizen’s personal and professional life, requires to be civilised by way of directives from Supreme Court.”
The plea said that several of the persons from whom the devices have been seized in various cases in the recent past are from the academic field or authors of repute.
“The academic community does and stores its research and writing in the electronic or digital medium, and the threat of damage, distortion, loss or premature exposure of academic or literary work in the event of seizure of electronic devices is considerable,” the petition stated.
It was the petitioners’ argument that there is no procedure or guideline stipulated in any law or even in most police manuals of a mode appropriate to the recovery of electronic/digital material, which is distinct from the recovery of other kinds of material.
“The CBDT manual has some reference to this but neither the CBI nor the NIA appear to have any procedural protocol in this regard,” the plea said.
Substantiating on the point of seizure memo, the petition submitted that such a memo merely mentioning that a computer device, laptop or phone has been seized, is not at “all a specific description of what has been seized in view of the wealth of the material such a device contains, much of which would be no concern of any state agency or anyone else.
Hence, the petitioners emphasised that the copy of what is seized must remain with an accused in a form that cannot be modified.
“A hard drive is a source of so much information which can be interpreted and misinterpreted, and the copy of what is seized must remain with an accused in a form that cannot be overwritten or changed so that he can offer his own interpretation of what is present, including involuntary downloads, access, and any interpolation can be detected,” the petition said.
Source: Barandbench
