In a significant ruling that underscores the primacy of a fair trial, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the right of an accused to seek crucial evidence for their defence overrides the right to privacy of police officials involved in the case.
Court's Landmark Observation on Competing Rights
Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor, in an order passed on November 11, 2025, made this pivotal observation while hearing a petition filed by an accused person. The petitioner had challenged a trial court's order which had dismissed his plea seeking the call data records (CDRs) and mobile tower location details of certain police officials. The High Court set aside the trial court's order dated May 3, 2025.
The court explicitly stated that while directing the preservation and production of such details under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) would infringe upon the privacy of the officials, the constitutional right of the accused under Article 21 to a free and fair investigation and trial must prevail.
The Legal Battle and Case Background
The case stemmed from a narcotics recovery incident. According to the prosecution, police officials had received secret information that the accused and another person were attempting to sell an intoxicating substance. Upon seeing the police, they allegedly tried to flee but were apprehended. The prosecution claimed 900 grams of charas was recovered from the accused and 315 grams of opium from a co-accused.
To bolster his defence, the accused sought the mobile location data of three police officials. His counsel argued that these records were essential for a fair defence. Conversely, the state's counsel opposed the plea, contending that the accused had no right to such information and that it would violate the officials' privacy.
Interpretation of Section 94 BNSS and Judicial Reasoning
The court delved into the legislative intent behind Section 94 BNSS, which allows a court or police officer to summon any document or thing necessary for an investigation, inquiry, or trial. Justice Rathor noted that the provision aims to ensure no cogent evidence remains undiscovered in the pursuit of truth.
The ruling clarified that facilitating a fair and just resolution sometimes requires a limited breach of privacy. The court reasoned that the production of call and location details is often necessary, as such evidence can be lost forever if not preserved promptly. This, in turn, aids the trial court in discovering the truth and delivering justice that is fair to all parties involved.
However, the High Court also imposed a crucial safeguard. It stated that before any such order is passed, the accused must demonstrate the necessity and desirability of the evidence. The evidence sought must be relevant to establishing guilt or innocence. Following this principle, the court directed the trial court in Sonipat to pass necessary orders under Section 94 BNSS for preserving and producing the requested call and tower location details.
This judgment reinforces the evolving jurisprudence on privacy, balancing it against the foundational principle of a fair trial in the Indian criminal justice system.
