Chhattisgarh HC refuses relief to accused who sought permission to examine social media of victim due to privacy concerns

Chhattisgarh High Court: In a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against the Trial Court’s refusal to allow examination of the social media accounts of the prosecutrix and play audio concerning her during the trial, a Single Judge Bench of Arvind Kumar Verma, J., dismissed the petition holding that it might compromise the privacy of the prosecutrix. Additionally, the Court held that the contentions raised by the accused- Food Inspector could not be examined by the Court because the adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version did not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 ¹ of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’).

Background

The prosecutrix, a Zila Panchayat Member, lodged an FIR against the present accused-a Food Inspector, under Sections 294 ², 323 ³, 506 ⁴, 376 ⁵, and 376(2)(n)⁶ of the Penal Code, 1860. She alleged that the inspector initially met her for work. Over time, the two began communicating over calls and grew closer. However, 18-19 months later, the prosecutrix discovered that the inspector was married with two children. Allegedly, when the prosecutrix confronted the inspector about concealing this fact, an argument ensued, and the relationship ended.

Allegedly, the inspector later contacted the prosecutrix and threatened her, claiming he would release her obscene videos. According to the prosecutrix, the inspector forcibly took her to a lodge where she was physically assaulted. He allegedly tied her hands and legs, coerced her, and restrained her until the next day. While traveling, he allegedly involved others who, along with the inspector, physically assaulted the prosecutrix and took her belongings. Thereafter, she was let go.

Aggrieved, she lodged the FIR. During the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, the defense sought permission to open the prosecutrix’s Facebook and Instagram accounts in Court to verify the authenticity of certain photographs presented by the State, which the prosecutrix had denied being associated with. The inspector also requested permission to play an audio recording allegedly involving the prosecutrix.

The Trial Court stated that the authenticity and chain of custody of the evidence presented were not adequately established. The request to access the Facebook and Instagram accounts was rejected by the Trial Court as no prior procedural steps had been taken to authenticate or obtain certified records of the social media content in question. Additionally, regarding the audio recording, the Trial Court noted that the pen drive containing the recording had not been submitted during the investigation and was not part of the charge sheet, rendering its origin and custody unclear.

Hence, the present petition was filed by the inspector.

Analysis

At the outset, the Court referred to Article 21 of the Constitution and the judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1, which affirmed the expansive interpretation of Article 21 and emphasised the importance of a holistic approach to interpreting and safeguarding fundamental rights. In this case, the Supreme Court held that privacy is a fundamental right, protected intrinsically under the right to life and personal liberty. It is a right enjoyed by every human being by virtue of their existence. It can extend to other aspects such as bodily integrity, personal autonomy, protection from state surveillance, dignity, confidentiality, etc. The Court also stated that the Supreme Court had opted to read Article 21 in conjunction with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (‘UDHR’) to broaden its application.

The Court reiterated that the right to privacy was a human right, enshrined in numerous international covenants and institutions as reflected in Article 12 of the UDHR and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.

Referring to the definition and history of privacy, the Court delved into the difference between privacy and the right to privacy. The Court stated that privacy as a concept was old, unlike the concept of the right to privacy. Privacy often relates to modern information and communication technologies and is based on the principle of natural rights. The right to privacy refers to our ability to protect the space around us, which includes all we own, such as our bodies, homes, assets, ideas, feelings, secrets, identities, etc.

The Court stated that the right to freedom should be carefully examined by the Parliament and the Supreme Court, and a means for balancing the conflicting rights to privacy and freedom of expression should be developed. In the digital age, data is a valuable resource that shouldn’t be unregulated. This case indicates that India’s time for a robust data protection regime has come.

Regarding the facts of the case, the Court agreed with the Trial Court’s rejection of the prayer to access and view the Facebook or Instagram account of the prosecutrix in the Court. Accordingly, the Court held that if permission was granted to examine the Facebook or Instagram account of the prosecutrix and to play the audio recording concerning her, then her privacy may be compromised.

The Court held that the inspector’s contentions could not be examined by the Court because the adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version did not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC.

The Court held that given the material on record, it could not be held that the impugned proceedings were manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the inspector due to a personal grudge.

Accordingly, the Court held that the present petition lacked merit and dismissed it.

[Prahlad Rathour v. State of Chhattisgarh, Cr.MP No. 314 of 2025, decided on 23-04-2025]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the petitioner: Pankaj Singh

For the respondent: Pranjal Shukla