Data Privacy In Criminal Law
Data privacy in the realm of criminal law refers to the legal protections individuals have against unauthorized access, collection, use, or disclosure of their personal dataโespecially by state authorities such as police or investigative agencies. As modern crime investigations rely heavily on digital footprints, balancing law enforcement powers with constitutional rights becomes critical.
The legal framework governing this includes:
Constitutional protections (e.g., the Right to Privacy under Article 21 in India, the Fourth Amendment in the U.S.)
Statutory laws (e.g., India's Information Technology Act, 2000)
Judicial interpretations that set the limits of lawful surveillance, search, seizure, and digital data collection.
Key issues include:
Can police force a person to unlock a phone?
Is surveillance without a warrant legal?
What level of privacy can be expected on social media or cloud services?
Are third-party data (e.g., mobile providers, banks) protected?
โ๏ธ Important Case Laws on Data Privacy in Criminal Law
1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
๐ Key Issue:
Does the Indian Constitution guarantee a fundamental right to privacy?
๐งพ Facts:
A retired judge challenged the Aadhaar biometric system, arguing it violated privacy rights. The state argued there was no fundamental right to privacy.
๐งโโ๏ธ Judgment:
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It laid down that any state action infringing privacy must:
Have a legitimate aim
Be proportionate
Follow due process
๐ Relevance to Criminal Law:
This ruling became the foundation for all privacy-related questions, including search and seizure of digital data by law enforcement, surveillance, and compelled disclosure of personal data in investigations.
2. Riley v. California (2014)
Citation: 573 U.S. 373
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
๐ Key Issue:
Can police search a cell phone without a warrant during arrest?
๐งพ Facts:
David Riley was arrested on weapon charges. Police searched his smartphone without a warrant and found evidence connecting him to a gang-related shooting.
๐งโโ๏ธ Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that warrantless searches of cell phones during arrests are unconstitutional. Digital data on phones is too personal and extensive to be treated like a wallet or bag.
๐ Relevance:
Established that digital privacy deserves strong protections in criminal investigations, setting a precedent for how phones, computers, and other digital devices should be handled by police.
3. State v. Anvar P.V. (Anvar v. Basheer) (2014)
Citation: (2014) 10 SCC 473
Court: Supreme Court of India
๐ Key Issue:
How can electronic evidence be admitted in court under Indian law?
๐งพ Facts:
Anvar was accused of defaming Basheer using a CD. The lower courts admitted the CD without following the procedure under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
๐งโโ๏ธ Judgment:
The Court ruled that electronic evidence is admissible only if accompanied by a Section 65B certificate that verifies its authenticity.
๐ Relevance:
This case tightened the legal standards for digital evidence, protecting individuals from fabricated or improperly obtained data being used against them.
4. United States v. Jones (2012)
Citation: 565 U.S. 400
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
๐ Key Issue:
Can the government attach a GPS device to a vehicle and track it without a warrant?
๐งพ Facts:
FBI agents attached a GPS tracker to Jones's vehicle without a valid warrant and monitored his movements for 28 days.
๐งโโ๏ธ Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that this constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, and doing so without a warrant was unconstitutional.
๐ Relevance:
Reinforced that digital surveillance by law enforcement is subject to constitutional scrutiny, especially when it invades a personโs reasonable expectation of privacy.
5. Amit Bhardwaj & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2019)
Court: Indian Courts (Pune Sessions Court; related litigation in Delhi HC)
๐ Key Issue:
Can investigative agencies compel a suspect to share passwords or decrypt devices?
๐งพ Facts:
Amit Bhardwaj was arrested in connection with a cryptocurrency scam. Law enforcement sought access to his encrypted digital wallets and devices.
๐งโโ๏ธ Judgment:
Although there wasnโt a landmark Supreme Court judgment in this specific case, it raised critical debates:
Does compelling a password amount to self-incrimination under Article 20(3)?
Is biometric unlocking (like a fingerprint) treated differently than sharing a password?
๐ Relevance:
This case highlighted the grey area in Indian criminal law around compelled decryption, digital self-incrimination, and privacy of financial/digital data.
๐ง Other Notable Mentions
Carpenter v. United States (2018, U.S.): SCOTUS ruled that historical cell-site location data requires a warrant, as individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their location data.
Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (2010): Focused on electronic evidence in cybercrime and data authenticity.
PUCL v. Union of India (1997): Early case on telephone tapping, where the SC ruled that wiretapping infringes privacy unless sanctioned by law.
๐ Conclusion
In criminal law, data privacy is a fast-evolving field, especially as technology blurs the line between public and private. Courts are increasingly recognizing:
The sensitivity of digital data
The need for clear legal safeguards
The importance of judicial oversight in surveillance and data collection
At the same time, law enforcement requires access to data for solving modern crimesโso the challenge is to find a constitutional balance between individual rights and public safety.
RELATED Blog
0 comments