The world has changed, CBI should also change: Supreme Court

New Delhi, December 5

Asking the CBI to evolve with the passage of time, the Supreme Court on Monday said, “The world has changed, CBI should also change”.

The comment came from a Bench led by Justice SK Kaul during hearing of a PIL filed by five academicians seeking guidelines for seizure of personal electronic devices such as cell phones and laptops by probe agencies.

As the petitioners’ counsel told the Bench that the manuals for investigation agencies were being updated the world over on the privacy issue, the Bench said the CBI Manual, which provided for the procedure to be adopted during an investigation, might need updating.

The Bench posted the matter for hearing in the week commencing February 7 next year after Additional Solicitor GeneralS V Raju said the Centre has already filed an affidavit and it can be finally heard.

Asserting that the right to privacy is not absolute, the Centre had earlier told the Supreme Court that a blanket order to return all personal digital devices such as cell phones and laptops belonging to individuals under probe.

In an affidavit filed in the top court, the Centre said while the right to privacy existed in all jurisdictions across the world, its regulation through statutory law was permissible and there can be no blanket exclusions.

The affidavit has been filed in response to a PIL by former JNU Prof Ram Ramaswamy and four others seeking guidelines for probe agencies with regard to seizure, examination and preservation of personal digital and electronic devices and the content contained therein.

The Centre said given the sensitivity of the data on such devices and the stage of investigation, the return of their personal gadgets would not be appropriate.

However, it said that in appropriate cases, the accused may be allowed to seek cloned images of the hard drive of the devices seized by probe agencies by invoking Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) even as it insisted that any blanket order for the return of such documents and devices of those under probe would be inappropriate.