Supreme Court Rulings On Wearable And Smart Home Device Evidence
🧠 1. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600
Facts:
In this case, the accused was involved in the conspiracy to assassinate former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. The prosecution sought to use electronic evidence, including data from communication devices, to establish the accused's involvement.
Issue:
Whether electronic evidence, such as data from communication devices, is admissible under the Indian Evidence Act.
Judgment & Principle:
The Supreme Court held that electronic records are admissible under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, provided they are accompanied by a certificate from the person in charge of the device or system. This case laid the foundation for the admissibility of electronic evidence in Indian courts.
Significance:
This ruling emphasized the importance of proper certification and compliance with legal procedures for the admissibility of electronic evidence.
🧠 2. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473
Facts:
The case involved the use of electronic records, including data from communication devices, to prove the authenticity of documents.
Issue:
Whether electronic records can be admitted as evidence without proper certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Judgment & Principle:
The Supreme Court clarified that electronic records are admissible only if they are accompanied by a certificate as per Section 65B. The Court emphasized that the absence of such a certificate renders the electronic record inadmissible.
Significance:
This judgment reinforced the necessity of adhering to the procedural requirements for the admissibility of electronic evidence.
🧠 3. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801
Facts:
The case involved the use of electronic records, including data from communication devices, to establish the commission of a crime.
Issue:
Whether the prosecution can be compelled to produce a certificate under Section 65B for electronic records.
Judgment & Principle:
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution cannot be compelled to produce a certificate under Section 65B if the electronic record is not in the possession of the prosecution. However, the Court emphasized that the absence of such a certificate does not automatically render the electronic record inadmissible.
Significance:
This ruling provided clarity on the circumstances under which electronic records can be admitted without a certificate under Section 65B.
🧠 4. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 524
Facts:
The case dealt with the seizure of electronic devices, including wearable devices, during an investigation.
Issue:
Whether the seizure and examination of electronic devices require adherence to specific legal procedures.
Judgment & Principle:
The Supreme Court directed that the seizure and examination of electronic devices must be conducted following the guidelines laid down in the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011.
Significance:
This judgment highlighted the need for adherence to established procedures when dealing with electronic devices to protect individuals' privacy rights.
🧠 5. Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union of India (2023) 9 SCC 1
Facts:
The case involved the seizure of digital devices, including wearable devices, from journalists during an investigation.
Issue:
Whether the seizure of digital devices from journalists violated their right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Judgment & Principle:
The Supreme Court directed the Union government to frame guidelines for the seizure of digital devices by investigative agencies. The Court emphasized the need to balance the right to privacy with the requirements of law enforcement.
Significance:
This ruling underscored the importance of protecting individuals' privacy rights while ensuring effective law enforcement.
⚖️ Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India has consistently upheld the admissibility of electronic evidence, including data from wearable and smart home devices, provided that proper legal procedures are followed. Key principles established by the Court include:
Certification Requirement: Electronic records must be accompanied by a certificate as per Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Adherence to Legal Procedures: The seizure and examination of electronic devices must comply with established legal guidelines to protect individuals' privacy rights.
Balancing Rights and Law Enforcement: Courts must balance the right to privacy with the needs of law enforcement when dealing with digital evidence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments