Preservation of Call Records Takes Priority Over Privacy Concerns, Rules Delhi High Court
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has directed the preservation of call data records (CDRs) for a man accused of stalking and sexually harassing a woman. The judgement, delivered by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambani on Tuesday, highlights the delicate balance between privacy concerns and the need for exculpatory evidence in criminal investigations.
The case dates back to May 2023, when Delhi Police booked the man under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology Act based on a complaint. The man, who claims he and the complainant were in a three-year relationship that ended after her husband found out, argues that the CDRs are essential to prove the nature of their relationship and counter what he calls a "pre-planned conspiracy."
The complainant opposes the preservation of CDRs, citing breach of privacy and possible stigma. However, the court's 29-page judgement flags a systemic gap: the absence of any formal mechanism for an accused to obtain exculpatory evidence. The court notes that CDRs can reveal details such as frequency, initiation, timing, and duration of calls, which may prove crucial in assessing interactions between parties.
The court holds that privacy concerns should not override the need to preserve potential exculpatory evidence. In the past, the court has stated that it is not uncommon for an investigating agency to disclose only their side of the case, allowing investigating officers to potentially withhold material helpful to the defence. The bench expresses concern over the means for an accused to collect exculpatory evidence being "woefully missing."
The court emphasizes that the preservation and use of CDRs must be limited to the purpose of investigation or trial of the specified crime. Judicial authorization is required for CDR extraction and preservation to avoid arbitrary surveillance or privacy violations. Due process is followed, including providing victims and accused the right to contest their admissibility.
Telecom service providers are generally mandated under the Indian Telegraph Act and Information Technology (IT) Act rules to retain call records for a specified period. In stalking and sexual harassment complaints, investigating agencies often seek to preserve and obtain CDRs through court orders during the evidence-gathering process. Courts have recognized the importance of CDR evidence in establishing contact, location, or harassment patterns, thus requiring telecom companies or service providers to preserve relevant call metadata once a complaint is registered or investigation initiated.
This approach reflects India's constitutional commitment to both privacy and justice. In balancing privacy rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (right to life and personal liberty) and the necessity of CDR evidence, courts require that any intrusion into privacy by accessing CDRs must follow due process. The court's judgement in this case underscores the importance of preserving CDRs in harassment and stalking cases, which may involve threats or repeated unwanted communications.
In conclusion, while no standalone law specifically governs CDR preservation in stalking or sexual harassment cases, a combination of telecom regulations, IT law provisions, investigative guidelines, and judicial oversight ensures CDRs are preserved as evidence under controlled, privacy-respecting conditions. The Delhi High Court's judgement serves as a reminder of the court's role in safeguarding both the privacy of individuals and the right to a fair trial.
