In a critical assertion of civil liberties, the Karnataka High Court recently ruled that call detail records (CDRs) of individuals are private and cannot be accessed by the police without justification. Justice Suraj Govindaraj, while hearing a plea to quash criminal proceedings against Sub-Inspector Vidya VM, unequivocally stated that such information must only be sought as part of a lawful investigation.
The court warned that if police are allowed to obtain CDRs without legal grounds, it would lead to the creation of a “police state” — a chilling prospect in a democracy governed by the rule of law. Emphasizing the importance of privacy, the judge invoked the precedent set in the Puttaswamy vs Union of India case, where the Supreme Court declared privacy a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The Case Against Sub-Inspector Vidya VM
The case stems from serious allegations made by a woman who claimed that Sub-Inspector Vidya VM, along with other accused, illegally obtained and shared her CDRs with individuals she had previously filed complaints against. The woman asserted that this data was then misused by the co-accused to harass and intimidate her.
The trial court, after examining the preliminary evidence, summoned Vidya and her co-accused in December 2024. In response, Vidya moved the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the proceedings, claiming she had accessed the CDRs as part of her official duties. However, the court rejected her defense, making it clear that official capacity cannot be used as a blanket justification for breaching constitutional rights.
Vidya and others now face charges under Sections 354(D) (stalking), 409 (criminal breach of trust), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 509 (outraging modesty) of the IPC, along with provisions of the Information Technology Act, including Section 66(D) (cheating using computer resources) and 66(E) (privacy violation).
Legal and Constitutional Implications
The Karnataka High Court’s observation is a significant development in the evolving jurisprudence around digital privacy. By restricting police access to call records only within the bounds of lawful investigation, the court has reaffirmed the delicate balance between investigative needs and individual rights.
Algoritha: The Most Trusted Name in BFSI Investigations and DFIR Services
The court’s reliance on the Puttaswamy judgment underscores the expanding recognition of data privacy as integral to personal liberty. The verdict also sends a strong message to law enforcement authorities about the legal limits of surveillance in the digital age. The acknowledgment that misuse of such information could create a ‘police state’ highlights the gravity of unchecked data access.
Legal experts believe this judgment will influence future policing practices and strengthen safeguards around personal data. It also raises important questions for lawmakers and enforcers about the need for robust internal checks and transparent protocols before accessing such sensitive information.
The Karnataka High Court’s decision serves as a powerful reminder that in a constitutional democracy, the rights of the citizen must remain paramount. While law enforcement agencies have a legitimate role in investigating crimes, their powers must be exercised with caution, transparency, and within the legal framework. As the digital footprints of citizens grow, so too must the vigilance against their misuse.