Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Hashmat Pasha for Sri. Nasir Ali.
For the Respondent: Sri. Veeranna G. Tigadi.

Based on the provided legal document, the court has extensively examined the legal issues surrounding the administration of polygraph tests, unlocking mobile devices, and the rights of individuals during criminal investigations. The key legal principles established are as follows:

1. Right Against Self-Incrimination and Consent: The court emphasized that any test or procedure that involves testimonial evidence, such as polygraph tests or providing passwords, cannot be conducted without the informed and voluntary consent of the individual. Silence or refusal to cooperate does not constitute consent, and any such tests conducted without proper consent are deemed void and inadmissible in court (!) (!) .

2. Protection of Personal Liberty and Privacy: The court reaffirmed that involuntary administration of tests like polygraph examinations, or compelling individuals to unlock their mobile devices or disclose passwords, infringes upon fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, specifically Articles 20(3) and 21. Such actions violate the right to privacy and the right against self-incrimination unless there is a lawful basis and proper procedure (!) (!) .

3. Principle of Natural Justice and Fair Procedure: Orders passed without giving the individual an opportunity to be heard or without obtaining their consent violate principles of natural justice. Orders made behind the back of the individual, especially in the context of compelling disclosures or tests, are considered illegal and abuse of process (!) (!) .

4. Legality of Court Orders and Investigation Procedures: The court held that directions to produce passwords or open electronic devices must be based on lawful procedures, with proper judicial authorization, and in accordance with the law. Orders that compel such disclosures without following due process are invalid (!) (!) .

5. Right to Privacy in Digital Data: The court recognized that digital data stored on mobile phones and electronic devices is an extension of personal privacy. Any invasion into this privacy must be backed by law, and the order to unlock or access such data without lawful authority violates the fundamental right to privacy (!) (!) .

6. Use of Data in Evidence: Data obtained from electronic devices or through disclosures like passwords are not automatically evidence of guilt. Such data must be proved during trial, and their collection must adhere to legal procedures. The act of providing passwords or unlocking devices does not amount to self-incriminating testimony, especially when done voluntarily and with lawful consent (!) (!) .

7. Procedural Safeguards and Search Procedures: The court outlined detailed procedural safeguards for conducting searches and seizures of electronic devices, including the presence of qualified forensic experts, documentation, sealing, and safeguarding of data. Emergency circumstances may permit searches without warrants but require proper recording and safeguards to protect rights (!) (!) .

8. Protection Against Arbitrary or Coercive Orders: Orders compelling individuals to unlock devices or undergo tests must be issued with proper legal backing and after informing the individual of their rights. Orders without such procedural safeguards are invalid, and any attempt to bypass lawful procedures is illegal (!) (!) .

9. Consequences of Refusal: If individuals refuse to provide passwords or biometrics, adverse inferences may be drawn, but coercive measures such as hacking or forced disclosures are only permissible under strict legal procedures, with safeguards to prevent misuse or violation of rights (!) (!) .

10. Legitimate Aims and Proportionality: The actions taken by investigation authorities, such as seeking access to personal data or conducting tests, must serve a legitimate purpose, be proportionate, and adhere to constitutional protections. Orders aimed at furthering investigations are lawful if they meet these criteria (!) (!) .

In summary, the court has clarified that any investigative action involving personal data, electronic devices, or testimonial evidence must strictly adhere to constitutional protections, procedural fairness, and legal standards. Orders that infringe upon these rights without lawful basis or proper consent are invalid and liable to be quashed.