Judicial Interpretation Of Iot Device Monitoring In Criminal Trials
IoT device monitoring in criminal trials are limited, I’ll explain the judicial principles from landmark rulings related to digital evidence, surveillance, privacy, and admissibility that apply to IoT data in criminal investigations and trials. These cases show how courts interpret and use data from IoT devices (like smartwatches, GPS trackers, home assistants) as evidence.
1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Key Issue: Right to privacy and surveillance
Explanation: The Supreme Court recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. This ruling implies that monitoring data from IoT devices (which collect personal info like location, voice, health) must comply with strict privacy protections.
Judicial Interpretation: Any collection or use of IoT data for criminal trials must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate to protect individual privacy rights.
Impact: Courts balance the state’s interest in investigation with the privacy rights of accused and others.
2. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)
Key Issue: Admissibility of electronic records under Section 65B of the Evidence Act
Explanation: This case mandates that any electronic evidence, including data from IoT devices, must be accompanied by a certificate proving its authenticity under Section 65B.
Judicial Interpretation: Without this certificate, electronic evidence cannot be admitted in court, ensuring evidence from devices like CCTV, smart home sensors, or GPS is verified.
Impact: Strict procedural safeguards apply to IoT data used in trials.
3. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)
Key Issue: Importance of procedural compliance in electronic evidence
Explanation: Reaffirmed the strict requirement for Section 65B compliance and authentication of electronic evidence.
Judicial Interpretation: Even if IoT evidence is crucial (like timestamped data from fitness trackers), courts demand proper certification and verification.
Impact: Courts do not admit IoT data without proper legal and procedural safeguards.
4. Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate (2010)
Key Issue: Use of technological evidence in criminal trials
Explanation: Although the case dealt with CDs and recordings, it set precedent that technological tools, when reliable, can be critical evidence.
Judicial Interpretation: Similarly, IoT device data, such as smart camera footage or digital logs, can be used to corroborate timelines or facts.
Impact: Courts accept modern tech evidence provided it meets reliability and relevance criteria.
5. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)
Key Issue: Flexibility in proving electronic evidence authenticity
Explanation: The Supreme Court recognized that in some situations, strict Section 65B compliance may be relaxed if the court is convinced about the evidence's authenticity.
Judicial Interpretation: This is important for IoT data collected by third parties (like telecom or IoT service providers), allowing courts to consider such evidence if reliability is shown.
Impact: Provides some procedural flexibility while ensuring fair trial standards.
Summary Table:
| Case | Key Principle | Relevance to IoT Device Monitoring |
|---|---|---|
| Puttaswamy (2017) | Right to privacy and surveillance | IoT data collection must respect privacy laws |
| Anvar P.V. (2014) | Section 65B certificate mandatory | IoT evidence must have authenticity certificate |
| Arjun Khotkar (2020) | Strict procedural compliance | IoT data must be verified and properly certified |
| Tukaram Dighole (2010) | Acceptance of tech-based evidence | IoT data can corroborate facts if reliable |
| Shafhi Mohammad (2018) | Flexibility in proving authenticity | Some leniency if IoT data authenticity is proved |
Key Takeaways:
IoT device data is considered electronic evidence and must follow legal protocols, especially under Section 65B.
Courts uphold the right to privacy, so any IoT monitoring must be lawful.
The authenticity and reliability of IoT evidence are crucial and often require corroboration.
Some flexibility exists when third parties provide IoT data, but fairness and accuracy remain priorities.
RELATED Blog
0 comments