在印度搜查和扣押电子设备:改变的时候到了吗?

Malika Galib Shah, Akash Gupta, Arushi Bajpai
{"title":"在印度搜查和扣押电子设备:改变的时候到了吗?","authors":"Malika Galib Shah, Akash Gupta, Arushi Bajpai","doi":"10.1177/13657127241230694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the past two decades, there has been an exponential rise in the use of technology for commission of crimes. In certain scenarios, investigation of such crimes call for inspections of an accused's personal electronic devices. In India, there is no law regulating the field of search and seizure of electronic devices in a criminal investigation. Only recently, Virendra Khanna v State of Karnataka laid down certain guidelines in this regard. Furthermore, on multiple occasions, the Indian Courts have relied on the US jurisprudence on the matter. Due to a well-developed jurisprudence in the USA on this subject, the authors have chosen to do a comparative study between the two countries. This paper seeks to examine how these two major democracies balance the right to privacy against the need to unearth information for better investigation. While analysing the lack of a well-rounded law on the matter, this paper also analyses the provisions in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill 2023 and highlights the missed opportunities to frame guidelines on the issue of search and seizure of electronic device. Section II of the paper introduces the readers to the law on electronic search and seizure in the USA. Section III examines the Indian position. It discusses the law as it was pre- Virendra Khanna, then goes into the law laid down by the Karnataka High Court in Virendra Khanna and critically analyses the same. It also looks at the progress made in the field through other legislation. Section IV deals with a comparative analysis of the USA and Indian law on the subject and section V provides mechanisms and ways in which the current law can be modified to deal with some of the inadequacies of the matter.","PeriodicalId":93382,"journal":{"name":"The international journal of evidence & proof","volume":"57 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Search and seizure of electronic devices in India: time for a change?\",\"authors\":\"Malika Galib Shah, Akash Gupta, Arushi Bajpai\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13657127241230694\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the past two decades, there has been an exponential rise in the use of technology for commission of crimes. In certain scenarios, investigation of such crimes call for inspections of an accused's personal electronic devices. In India, there is no law regulating the field of search and seizure of electronic devices in a criminal investigation. Only recently, Virendra Khanna v State of Karnataka laid down certain guidelines in this regard. Furthermore, on multiple occasions, the Indian Courts have relied on the US jurisprudence on the matter. Due to a well-developed jurisprudence in the USA on this subject, the authors have chosen to do a comparative study between the two countries. This paper seeks to examine how these two major democracies balance the right to privacy against the need to unearth information for better investigation. While analysing the lack of a well-rounded law on the matter, this paper also analyses the provisions in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill 2023 and highlights the missed opportunities to frame guidelines on the issue of search and seizure of electronic device. Section II of the paper introduces the readers to the law on electronic search and seizure in the USA. Section III examines the Indian position. It discusses the law as it was pre- Virendra Khanna, then goes into the law laid down by the Karnataka High Court in Virendra Khanna and critically analyses the same. It also looks at the progress made in the field through other legislation. Section IV deals with a comparative analysis of the USA and Indian law on the subject and section V provides mechanisms and ways in which the current law can be modified to deal with some of the inadequacies of the matter.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93382,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The international journal of evidence & proof\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The international journal of evidence & proof\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127241230694\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The international journal of evidence & proof","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127241230694","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去二十年中,利用技术实施犯罪的情况呈指数级增长。在某些情况下,调查此类犯罪需要检查被告的个人电子设备。在印度,没有任何法律规定在刑事调查中搜查和扣押电子设备。直到最近,Virendra Khanna 诉卡纳塔克邦案才在这方面规定了一些准则。此外,印度法院曾多次援引美国在此问题上的判例。由于美国在这一问题上的判例十分完善,作者选择在两国之间进行比较研究。本文试图研究这两个主要的民主国家如何平衡隐私权和为更好地调查而挖掘信息的需要。在分析缺乏完善的相关法律的同时,本文还分析了《2023 年数字个人数据保护法》和《2023 年印度国家信息安全法案》中的条款,并强调了在电子设备的搜查和扣押问题上制定指导方针所错失的机会。本文第二节向读者介绍了美国关于电子搜索和扣押的法律。第三节探讨了印度的立场。它讨论了 Virendra Khanna 案之前的法律,然后深入探讨了卡纳塔克邦高等法院在 Virendra Khanna 案中制定的法律,并对其进行了批判性分析。报告还探讨了通过其他立法在该领域取得的进展。第四部分对美国和印度有关该问题的法律进行了比较分析,第五部分提供了修改现行法律的机制和方法,以解决该问题的一些不足之处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Search and seizure of electronic devices in India: time for a change?
In the past two decades, there has been an exponential rise in the use of technology for commission of crimes. In certain scenarios, investigation of such crimes call for inspections of an accused's personal electronic devices. In India, there is no law regulating the field of search and seizure of electronic devices in a criminal investigation. Only recently, Virendra Khanna v State of Karnataka laid down certain guidelines in this regard. Furthermore, on multiple occasions, the Indian Courts have relied on the US jurisprudence on the matter. Due to a well-developed jurisprudence in the USA on this subject, the authors have chosen to do a comparative study between the two countries. This paper seeks to examine how these two major democracies balance the right to privacy against the need to unearth information for better investigation. While analysing the lack of a well-rounded law on the matter, this paper also analyses the provisions in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill 2023 and highlights the missed opportunities to frame guidelines on the issue of search and seizure of electronic device. Section II of the paper introduces the readers to the law on electronic search and seizure in the USA. Section III examines the Indian position. It discusses the law as it was pre- Virendra Khanna, then goes into the law laid down by the Karnataka High Court in Virendra Khanna and critically analyses the same. It also looks at the progress made in the field through other legislation. Section IV deals with a comparative analysis of the USA and Indian law on the subject and section V provides mechanisms and ways in which the current law can be modified to deal with some of the inadequacies of the matter.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信