Accused’s Right to Fair Trial Overrides Police Privacy: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an accused person’s right to a fair trial outweighs the privacy rights of police personnel when it comes to accessing call data records (CDRs) and mobile location information.

Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor made these observations on November 20 while hearing a challenge to a trial court order that had refused an accused’s request for the CDRs and tower location details of certain police officials. The Court noted that Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) expressly allows an accused to seek documents necessary for their defence, and this right has been recognised by Constitutional Courts.

The judge explained that Section 94 BNSS reflects a legislative intent to ensure that all relevant material that can assist during investigation, inquiry or trial is brought before the court. Although directing the production of call records may intrude upon the privacy of police personnel, the Court clarified that an accused’s right under Article 21—to secure a free and fair investigation and trial—must take precedence.

Case Background

The accused had sought the CDRs and mobile tower location data of three police officials involved in the case. According to the prosecution, the police had acted on secret information and caught the accused and a co-accused while they were allegedly attempting to sell narcotics. The police claimed to have recovered 900 grams of charas from the accused and 315 grams of opium from the co-accused. The accused argued that the officers’ mobile location data was crucial to present his defence.

Arguments

The petitioner contended that preserving these digital records was necessary for verifying the presence and movements of the police officials during the incident. The State, however, argued that the accused had no right to demand such information, as it would violate the privacy of the officers.

High Court’s Ruling

The Court observed that Section 94 BNSS is meant to ensure that all relevant evidence is made available, enabling a fair adjudication. If the records are not preserved in time, they may be permanently lost, the bench noted. While acknowledging that producing such information may involve a limited breach of privacy, the Court held that this is acceptable when it helps uncover the truth.

However, the Court also emphasised that the accused must first show the necessity and relevance of such information.

Setting aside the trial court’s order dated May 3, 2025, the High Court directed the trial court to issue appropriate directions under Section 94 BNSS for preserving and producing the call data and location records.