Punjab and Haryana HC rejects plea for disclosure of police call data on privacy grounds

The Punjab and Haryana high court has rejected a plea regarding the disclosure of call data records (CDRs) and tower location data of police officers, emphasising that such orders should only be made under compelling circumstances due to the potentially serious consequences on privacy and ongoing investigations.

This cautionary order came in response to a plea filed by a Tarn Taran resident, Jasmeet Singh, who sought preservation of call records of police officials associated with the probe in a corruption case registered in January 2024.

A bench of justice Manjari Nehru Kaul dismissed the plea stressing the need for a balanced approach to protect both the rights of the accused and the integrity of law enforcement operations. The bench highlighted that while an accused has the right to a fair trial and the opportunity to present an effective defense, such rights cannot be exercised in a way that unjustifiably infringes on others’ privacy or disrupts law enforcement operations.

“The preservation and disclosure of CDRs and tower location data, particularly those belonging to police officials, must be approached with caution, as such records may contain sensitive information, including details of secret informants and operational movement. Allowing such prayers without compelling justification would set a dangerous precedent and could have far-reaching consequences during the investigation of cases,” the bench observed.

The petitioner alleged that he was falsely implicated and that the CDRs and tower locations of the police officials were crucial to proving his innocence. However, the court found that he failed to provide specific, cogent reasons to justify preserving the data.

The court noted that the petitioner’s claims were vague and speculative, such as stating that “requested data would either verify/authenticate or belie the versions of the police as recorded in the FIR and that its disclosure would make startling revelations and expose the highhandedness of the investigation.”

“..such sweeping and unsubstantiated claims cannot form the basis for accepting the prayer as it intrudes upon the privacy of third party and potentially compromises the integrity of an ongoing investigation,” the court added.

Dismissing the plea, the court ruled that no specific “factual foundation” had been presented to establish how the requested data was essential for the petitioner’s defense or how its absence would cause prejudice. “The application moved before the trial court was wholly lacking in substance, and the same deficiency persists before this court,” it said, refusing to interfere with the trial court’s order.