Uttarakhand High Court holds victim privacy alone cannot defeat CDR request if relevant for fair trial

Court Strikes Down Privacy-Only Rejection of CDR Request

The Uttarakhand High Court has delivered a significant ruling clarifying that an accused's request for Call Detail Records (CDRs) and tower location data cannot be thrown out solely on the ground of a victim's right to privacy when such electronic evidence is prima facie relevant to a fair trial . Justice Alok Mahra set aside a trial court order that had rejected an application under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) , emphasizing that courts must strike a balance between the accused's constitutional right to a fair defence and the victim's privacy.

Background: The Allegations and the Application

The case arose from an FIR alleging rape of a minor. After a charge-sheet and commencement of trial, the petitioner—an accused—filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Special Court in Haridwar , seeking preservation and production of CDRs, tower location details, and Customer Application Forms for six mobile numbers belonging to him, co-accused, and the victim, for the period April 1, 2024 to June 4, 2025 . The prosecution opposed the application, arguing that the victim was a juvenile and that summoning her records would violate her privacy. The trial court kept the application pending for over three months and finally rejected it on June 1, 2026 , solely on the privacy ground.

Petitioner's Case: Irreplaceable Electronic Evidence

Challenging the order, the petitioner argued that the CDRs and tower location details were material electronic evidence capable of establishing his presence or absence at the alleged scene of occurrence. Since all parties—including the victim—were using mobile phones during the relevant period, the records were directly relevant to his defence. He warned that telecom service providers, under Department of Telecommunications licensing conditions, preserve CDRs only for two years, after which they are permanently deleted. Without immediate preservation, the evidence would be irretrievably lost, depriving him of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution . Reliance was placed on a Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling in CRR No. 2263 of 2025, which had directed preservation of such records to prevent miscarriage of justice .

State's Stand: Victim Privacy and Stage of Trial

The State opposed the writ petition, submitting that no illegality had been committed by the trial court. It contended that prosecution evidence was still being recorded and that the accused would have ample opportunity to lead defence evidence later. According to the State, the discretion exercised by the trial court under Section 94 BNSS—which empowers a court to require production of documents or electronic records when necessary for investigation, inquiry, or trial—did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction .

Legal Analysis: Balancing Two Constitutional Rights

Justice Alok Mahra framed the central question: whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application solely on the ground that the records pertained to the victim and their production would infringe her privacy.

The court held that Section 94 BNSS empowers the court to direct production of electronic records, including CDRs and tower location details, where such production appears necessary or desirable for the trial. Where there exists a reasonable apprehension that records may be permanently destroyed due to service providers' retention policies, the court must consider their preservation.

The judgment then addressed the competing rights:

"The right of an accused to a fair investigation and fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and the victim's right to privacy are both constitutionally protected rights. The Court is, therefore, required to strike a balance between the competing rights."

Crucially, the court declared:

"An application seeking production of CDRs cannot be rejected solely on the ground of privacy if the records are prima facie relevant for a just adjudication of the case."

However, the court recognized that the victim's privacy can be protected through appropriate safeguards:

"At the same time, the trial Court may protect the victim's privacy by adopting appropriate safeguards, such as preservation of the records, production in a sealed cover , redaction of irrelevant material or permitting limited inspection , as the facts of the case may warrant."

Key Observations: Safeguards Like Sealed Cover Suggested

The court noted that the trial court had not examined whether preservation was necessary to prevent destruction of the records or whether safeguards could adequately protect the victim's privacy. The impugned order was, therefore, unsustainable.

Final Verdict: Remand with Preservation Direction

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying criminal case, Justice Alok Mahra set aside the trial court's order and remitted the matter to the Additional Sessions Judge. The trial court has been directed to forthwith exercise its jurisdiction under Section 94 BNSS and pass appropriate orders for preservation of the CDRs, tower location details, and connected electronic records for the specified mobile numbers and period, so that the evidence is not lost due to service providers' retention policies.

The writ petition was allowed to that extent, with the trial court directed to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations in the high court's order. The judgment reinforces the principle that the right to a fair trial cannot be subordinated to privacy concerns without a careful assessment of relevance and available protective measures.