Judicial Interpretation Of Iot Device Monitoring In Criminal Trials
IoT (Internet of Things) device monitoring in criminal trials. Since IoT technology is relatively new, there aren’t many direct Supreme Court rulings solely on IoT evidence in India. However, courts have addressed related principles involving digital surveillance, electronic evidence, privacy rights, and admissibility, which are directly relevant when IoT devices (like smartwatches, CCTV, home assistants, etc.) are used in investigations or trials.
Here are five key cases with detailed judicial interpretation that relate to how IoT evidence is viewed and handled in criminal trials:
1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Key Issue: Right to privacy and data surveillance
Background: This landmark 9-judge bench ruling declared privacy a fundamental right under Article 21.
Ruling: Any surveillance or collection of personal data—including from IoT devices—must have legal backing, proportionality, and necessity.
Impact: Monitoring of data from personal IoT devices in criminal trials must respect privacy laws and cannot be arbitrary or unlawful.
2. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)
Key Issue: Admissibility of electronic evidence
Background: This case clarified the procedure for admitting electronic records under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Ruling: For IoT data (like GPS logs, voice recordings, or health data) to be admissible, a Section 65B certificate must be filed to establish authenticity.
Impact: Sets the evidentiary foundation for using IoT-derived data in court—without this certificate, it’s inadmissible.
3. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)
Key Issue: Strict compliance with 65B requirements
Background: This case reaffirmed that digital evidence must be authenticated, even if taken from devices like smartphones or IoT systems.
Ruling: Reiterated that no shortcuts are allowed; procedural compliance is essential for any electronic evidence.
Impact: Reinforces that data from IoT devices (like CCTV from smart homes) must be properly documented and certified to be used in trials.
4. Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate (2010)
Key Issue: Use of technological devices in trial proceedings
Background: Though this case focused on CDs and recordings, the Court acknowledged the growing role of technological tools in gathering evidence.
Ruling: Electronic data, if properly verified, can play a key role in establishing facts.
Impact: Opens the door to using IoT devices like dashcams, fitness trackers, or digital locks to corroborate timelines or behavior in criminal cases.
5. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)
Key Issue: Relaxation of 65B requirements in certain cases
Background: The Court created some flexibility where the person presenting electronic evidence is not the one who created it.
Ruling: Allowed for alternative methods of proving electronic evidence, especially in investigative scenarios.
Impact: Important for IoT data gathered by third parties (e.g., service providers or police using smart sensors), allowing such evidence in court if its integrity is maintained.
Summary Table:
| Case | Key Focus | Relevance to IoT Device Monitoring |
|---|---|---|
| Puttaswamy (2017) | Privacy and surveillance | IoT surveillance must respect privacy rights |
| Anvar P.V. (2014) | Electronic evidence rules | IoT data must meet 65B criteria to be admissible |
| Arjun Khotkar (2020) | Strict authentication of digital data | No exceptions for IoT—follow evidence rules |
| Tukaram Dighole (2010) | Tech-based evidence accepted in trials | IoT data is valid if verified and relevant |
| Shafhi Mohammad (2018) | Flexibility in 65B for third-party data | IoT data by third parties can be used if reliable |
Key Takeaways:
IoT evidence (like smart door logs, voice assistant commands, GPS from fitness devices) is admissible only if properly certified under Section 65B.
The privacy of individuals must be protected—evidence from IoT must be obtained legally and proportionately.
Courts may accept such evidence if it is relevant, reliable, and linked clearly to the alleged offence.
Cases like Puttaswamy also mean that unauthorized mass surveillance via IoT is unconstitutional.
RELATED Blog
0 comments