"Two years have passed": Supreme Court to Centre over delay in framing guidelines for search, seizure of personal digital devices

The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed its dissatisfaction over the delay by the Central government in framing guidelines to govern the search and seizure of personal digital devices by police and central agencies [Foundation for Media Professionals vs Union of India and Ors].A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia was informed by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) V Raju that a committee has been formed, and the Central government would require more time to formulate the guidelines. A positive outcome is in the works, the ASG said.Justice Kaul, however, questioned the two-year delay by the government since the filing of the petition before the apex court seeking such guidelines. "When did we issue notice? Some timeframe has to be followed. Two years have passed, Mr Raju!" Justice Kaul said..The top court was hearing two public interest litigation (PIL) petitions regarding necessary mechanisms for the search and seizure of digital devices by law enforcement and investigating agencies.One plea was filed by the Foundation for Media Professionals seeking guidelines be put in place in this regard.The other plea filed by a group of five academicians and researchers contended that unbridled powers were being exercised by investigating agencies when it comes to seizing digital devices that contain "much, if not all, of a citizen’s personal and professional life."The petitioners added that such seizures must be done in a civilised by way, guided by the directives of the Supreme Court.The plea pointed out that several persons from whom such devices have been seized in the recent past were from the academic field or were authors of repute.In August 2022, the Supreme Court had asked the Central government to file a fresh reply to the academicians' plea, after finding that its counter-affidavit was incomplete and not satisfactory. In November that year, the Court had imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the government for not filing the said reply..When the matter came up for hearing on Wednesday, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, representing the petitioners, emphasized the urgent need for guidelines, suggesting that copies of necessary data on devices could be taken instead of seizing the entire content.Ramakrishnan pointed out that 300 journalists were raided in relation to the recent Newsclick case and urged the Court to consider laying down interim guidelines.The Court acknowledged the gravity of the situation, expressing skepticism about the government's assurances regarding the framing of guidelines. However, the ASG assured the Court that the guidelines would be ready by the next week. "Get it done," the bench said as the hearing drew to a close.The Court then ordered the case to be listed on December 14.