The Karnataka High Court recently decided that the Call details (CDR) records were private. She stated that the police could not “unnecessarily” collect such information if there is no ongoing official investigation that would require it.
According to Bare and the judge’s bench, he said that if the police were allowed to obtain CDRs that are not part of the legal investigation, this would lead to the police state.
Judge Suraj Govindaraj made observations and refused to cancel a criminal case filed against a subordinate police station byatarayanapura Vidya VM. It was claimed that the CDR was illegally gathered.
Violate the right to privacy
The Karnataka High Court ruled that the records of the details of the individual’s call were personal and private data and that unnecessary collection of such details would violate the right to privacy.
“If the police are allowed to obtain a CDR that are not part of a legal investigation, it would lead to a police state,” said Judge Bar and Bench as during hearing.
“The power to obtain CDR of any individual should be performed only during the legal investigation of the investigative official,” the court said before the rejection of the reason for the police.
What’s that?
As per the report, Vidya Vm and Some Other Co-AcCused Persons, Face and Criminal Case Under Sections 354 (D) (Stalking), 409 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 506 (Criminal Intimidation) and 509 (Word, Gesture, Act intended to insult) 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 illegal recording of women’s call details. The woman claimed that police officials illegally proceeded to her CDR and shared them with others with another criminal case against. The woman claimed that these CDRs were abused by fellow charges who were bothered by her.
The woman then filed a private complaint against Vidy and others. In December 2024, the court convened Vidya and another accused in this case. Vidya eventually turned to the High Court to suppress the case against her.
Vidy’s advisor, advocate Satyanarayan Chalke, claimed that a policeman was looking for a CDR in fulfilling her official duties.
However, the court refused to grant any relief and observe that the unnecessary acquisition of the CDR person would violate the right to privacy, as stipulated in the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Puttaswama.
(Tagstotranslate) Karnataka HC