BENGALURU | MAY 31, 2025 —
The Karnataka High Court has held that the call detail records (CDRs) of an individual are private in nature, and the police cannot collect such information without a legitimate investigation in progress. The Court emphasized that such actions constitute a violation of the right to privacy, reaffirming constitutional protections laid down in the landmark Puttaswamy judgment by the Supreme Court.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, while delivering the ruling, refused to quash criminal proceedings against Sub-Inspector Vidya VM of the Byatarayanapura Police Station, who is accused of illegally obtaining the CDRs of a woman and allegedly sharing them with other parties.
“The CDRs of an individual are personal, private details and unnecessarily collecting such details would violate the right to privacy,” said Justice Suraj Govindaraj.
He further observed:
“If police are allowed to obtain CDRs that are not part of a lawful investigation, it would lead to a police state.”
RIGHT TO PRIVACY: BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Sub-Inspector Vidya VM is facing a criminal case under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, including:
Section 354(D) – Stalking
Section 409 – Criminal breach of trust
Section 506 – Criminal intimidation
Section 509 – Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman
Section 66(D) – Cheating by personation using computer resources
Section 66(E) – Violation of privacy
The case stems from a private complaint filed by a woman who alleged that the police officer illegally accessed her call records and passed them on to co-accused individuals against whom she had already filed a criminal case. The complainant claimed these records were misused to harass and trouble her.
In December 2024, a trial court summoned Vidya VM and other accused persons to appear in response to the complaint.
POLICE OFFICER SOUGHT QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS
Vidya approached the High Court seeking to quash the case, asserting that she had accessed the CDRs as part of her official duties. Her counsel, Advocate Satyanarayan Chalke, argued that the action was taken in the line of duty and not intended to cause harm.
However, the Court was not persuaded. It ruled that:
“The power to obtain the CDR of any individual should only be exercised during a lawful investigation by the investigating officer.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed her plea, reiterating that any unjustified access to an individual’s private data without due process violates the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
