The Supreme Court of India on Thursday, 22 January 2026, refused to restrain the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from accessing data on the mobile phone of Jitendra Mehta, a functionary of political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC), which was seized during a search at the firm’s Delhi office on 8 January 2026. Mehta has been summoned to appear before the ED at its headquarters on Friday, 23 January 2026.
Appearing before a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, senior advocate C A Sundaram, representing Mehta, argued that allowing the ED to access the contents of the phone would violate his client’s right to privacy. He urged the court to restrain the agency from opening the device until the next date of hearing on Tuesday. The bench, however, questioned the plea, asking, “Why are you so afraid?” When Sundaram contended that the apex court should intervene to protect Mehta’s fundamental rights, the bench responded, “We know how to protect an innocent citizen.” Sundaram then remarked that the court appeared to be presuming his client’s guilt.
The court noted that during the January 8 search operation, ED officials seized digital devices from I-PAC’s Delhi office. However, similar action could not be completed at the firm’s Kolkata premises after West Bengal Police officials intervened in the presence of Mamata Banerjee, the Chief Minister of West Bengal. Documents and digital devices seized by ED officers in Kolkata were reportedly taken away from them during the interruption.
The CJI-led bench also decided to club all matters relating to interim restraints placed on the ED from accessing phones and digital devices of accused persons in other money laundering cases and scheduled a consolidated hearing for Tuesday.
Sources indicated that the other cases where the ED has been restrained by the Supreme Court from accessing digital data include matters linked to Future Gaming owned by lottery businessman Santiago Martin, NewsClick, Foundation for Media Professionals, Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd, and the Tamil Nadu government. In these cases, it was argued that existing laws were inadequate and that permitting enforcement agencies to access personal devices would infringe upon the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 and the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
The accused in these matters have sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to frame comprehensive guidelines governing the search and seizure of digital devices, citing concerns that such devices also contain extensive personal data. In November 2023, the court had directed the government to draft such guidelines. Following a request for time, the Ministry of Home Affairs later constituted a panel headed by the director of the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) to formulate norms aimed at curbing the indiscriminate seizure of digital devices. The government has argued that until formal guidelines are finalised, central agencies should be permitted to follow the CBI manual while conducting searches and seizures.
Source: Times of India
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
