1. Prosecution petition seeking direction to accused to furnish passwords of seized mobile phones whose data is cryptographically protected, raising Article 20(3) and privacy objections. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(DC) 4
DISTRICT COURT
State represented by Deputy Police Superintendent – Appellant
Versus
Rahul Mamkootathil – Respondent
Crl.M.P 05/2026
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Prosecution contends passcodes are essential to extract call records and messages for investigation; accused argues disclosure violates Article 20(3) and right to privacy. (Para 3 , 8 )
3. Petition allowed; accused directed to furnish passcodes of seized mobile phones to enable extraction of call records and messages for investigation. (Para 8 )
4. Does compelling an accused to furnish a mobile phone passcode amount to testimonial compulsion or self-incrimination under Article 20(3)?
No. Providing a passcode merely grants access to data and does not make the accused a witness. The investigating officer must independently prove the content in court following applicable rules of evidence. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Can an investigating officer direct an accused to furnish mobile phone passcodes during a criminal investigation?
Yes. The investigating officer may issue such a direction as a routine investigative step. The accused may accede or refuse; if refused, appropriate legal steps follow. Data gathered must be proven in accordance with law. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
6. Are passcodes necessary for extracting call records and messages to ensure a just and fair investigation?
Yes. Once passcodes are provided, the prosecution can recover call records and messages that shed light on the ongoing investigation, making them necessary for a just and fair investigation. (Para 8 )
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, THIRUVALLA Present: Smt. Arundhathi Dileep, Judicial Magistrate of the First Class.
Saturday the 21st day of February, 2026/ 02nd day of Phalguna 1947 S.E.
Crl.M.P 05/2026 in State Crime Branch P.S Crime No. 100/C.B/KLM/and PTA -D/26.
Petitioner : State represented by Deputy Police Superintendent, Special Investigation Team, State Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram.
(Smt. Devi M G, Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade – I, Thiruvalla)
Accused : Rahul Mamkootathil, Aged 36 S/o Rajendra Kurup Attuvilakath House, Mundapalli, Parakkoottam, Pathanamthitta, Kerala.
(By Adv. Abhilash Chandran)
Order : Petition is allowed.
O R D E R
1. This is a petition filed by the prosecution for a direction to the accused to furnish
the passwords of the mobile phones recovered from him.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of arrest of the accused, two
mobile phones were seized from his custody. When the said mobile phones were
send to the forensic lab for examination, the Director of the forensic science lab had filed a report stating that both the mobile phones were secured with user - defined passcodes and hence the user data remains cryptographically protected and is technically inaccessible. Hence the petition.
3. The accused had filed objection stating that a direction to disclose pass codes of his mobile violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution as well as his fundamental right to privacy as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puttaswamy v. Union of India. The attempt of the prosecution is to obtain his digital history for political purposes. The accused is ready to provide his passcodes if the device is to be opened in his presence and he shall also be permitted to secure his device with passcodes after the examination.
4. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
5. The first and foremost question to be considered in the instant case is whether a direction can be given to the accused to furnish his passcodes/passwords and whether it will be violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution as well as the right to privacy of the accused?
6. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, in Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka by Banasawadi Police, Anr, 2021 KHC 7136, had held that “the Investigating Officer, during the course of an investigation, could always issue any direction and/or make a request to the accused or other persons connected with the matter to furnish information, to provide material objects or the like. These directions are routine in any investigation. Thus, during the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer could always request and/or direct the accused to furnish the password, passcode or Biometrics, enabling the opening of the smartphone and/or email account. It is up to the accused to accede to the said request and or directions. If the accused were to provide such a password, passcode or Biometrics, the Investigating Officer could make use of the same and gain an access to the same”. The Hon’ble Court while considering the question as to whether providing a password, pass code or Biometrics amount to self-incrimination or testimonial compulsion had held that, “As regards the contention that providing of the password/pass code will amount to testimonial compulsion, I am of the considered opinion that there is no testimony which is given by the accused by providing the said password, passcode or biometrics by which the document is being accessed by the Investigating officer. The XI Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Kathi Kalu Oghad's case has categorically held that providing of a thumb impression or impression of the palm or foot or fingers or specimen in writing or exposing a part of the body of an accused person for the purpose of identification would not amount to testimonial compulsion. Mere providing of an access of to smartphone or e-mail account would not amount to being a witness, the information that is accessed by the Investigating officer on the
