New Delhi | Special Correspondent: Arun Sharma

In a significant ruling on the balance between individual privacy and the powers of investigating agencies, the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a plea citing violation of privacy and permitted the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to access the mobile phone of an individual associated with political consultancy firm I-PAC.


The apex court observed that privacy cannot be used as a shield to stall a lawful investigation. During the hearing, the bench remarked, “Why are you so afraid? We know how to protect the innocent,” underscoring that constitutional courts are capable of ensuring safeguards against misuse of investigative powers.


The case relates to I-PAC-linked individual Jitendra Mehta, whose mobile phone was seized by the ED during a search operation conducted on January 8 at the firm’s Delhi office in connection with a money laundering probe. Mehta has been summoned for questioning as part of the ongoing investigation.


Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that allowing access to the mobile phone would infringe upon the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the court declined to accept this contention, stating that digital devices can be examined within the framework of law and established safeguards.


The bench also noted that there are existing judicial precedents where investigative agencies have been granted limited access to digital devices in cases involving serious economic offences. It reiterated that mere apprehension of misuse cannot be a ground to restrain a statutory agency from performing its duties.


The court took note of the fact that while the ED was able to seize digital devices from the I-PAC office in Delhi, a similar search operation in Kolkata was interrupted following the intervention of West Bengal Police. The Supreme Court said such issues further highlight the need for clarity and consistency in the enforcement of search and seizure procedures.


Legal experts say the ruling reinforces the authority of central investigative agencies in probing financial crimes, while also making it clear that the right to privacy is not absolute and must be balanced against the interests of justice and effective law enforcement.