SC orders Union govt to follow CBI manual on seized devices until guidelines are framed

The Supreme Court on 14 December ordered the Union government to henceforth follow the 2020 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) manual to protect the integrity of personal data stored in electronic devices seized during raids conducted, especially, on members of the academia and media. The bench fixed the next hearing of the matter on 6 February.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia said until such time as new guidelines are put in place, central probe agencies will follow the CBI manual for search and seizure of such equipment. The case will be heard before a new bench as Kaul retires on 25 December.

When additional solicitor-general SV Raju submitted that this would mean training the personnel of other agencies to follow the CBI manual, Kaul responded, “Train them! They are trained to do other things. Why can’t they be trained to do this?”

Raju said the authorities had deliberated on the proposed guidelines. The Union government said several rounds of talks have been held in order to formulate guidelines for seized electronic devices in the course of criminal investigations. Raju added that finalising the guidelines will take some time as consultation was also required with forensic laboratories and experts.

"Look, the problem is this, how long makes a difference, it has been on for some time now. The writ petition is from 2021 and that is why they are concerned. How much time do you think it will require? You have been holding meetings but when will the output come?” the bench asked Raju.

The apex court had on 7 November asked the Centre to put in place guidelines on the seizure of electronic devices of individuals, particularly media professionals, saying impounding equipment without following guidelines was a serious matter. During the next hearing, on 6 December, the Union government had assured the court that guidelines for the seizure of electronic equipment would be put in place.

Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan and advocate S Prasanna said the CBI manual may not extensively protect the corruption of data or malicious implanting of files in confiscated devices. Ramakrishnan said the manual, at most, only mandated the sharing of the ‘hash value’ or the unique electronic fingerprint of the data in a seized device.

In order to protect the authenticity of seized electronic devices, the Information Technology Act mandates the generation of their hash values. Hash value is an electronic fingerprint of a digital device, and records changes if contents in the device are tampered with after seizure.

The top court was hearing two petitions, including one filed by Foundation for Media Professionals, seeking comprehensive guidelines for search and seizure of digital devices by investigative agencies.

“Additional solicitor-general SV Raju says that in the conspectus of the existing CBI manual, Karnataka manual and the Code of Criminal Procedure, a number of discussions have taken place and that he will need six more weeks. He has further assured the court that for the time being the CBI manual will be followed,” stated the bench in its order.

The Centre’s undertaking that its investigative agencies would share the hash value came after the court pointed out that some guidelines had to be followed to guide agencies when they confiscated such devices until the Union government framed rules.

The petitioners’ counsel said the government was delaying the procedure and asked the court to issue interim directions.

“If you are getting a hash value, you are getting something. The CBI Manual touches upon this. Today, you will not even get your hash value. Now, if they follow the CBI manual, at least you will get a hash value," the bench told the petitioners' counsel.