Call Detail Records Can't Be Denied Solely On Privacy Grounds If Relevant To Fair Trial, Says Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that an application seeking Call Detail Records (CDRs) cannot be rejected solely because the records also concern a victim's privacy, when the electronic material is prima facie relevant to a fair adjudication of the case.

Justice Alok Mahra delivered the judgment on July 17, 2026, in a writ petition concerning the preservation and production of CDRs and tower location details under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Background of the Case

The petitioner had approached the High Court after the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Special Court, Haridwar, rejected an application seeking CDRs, tower location details and related electronic records for the period from April 1, 2024 to June 4, 2025.

The prosecution case involved allegations concerning a minor victim. During the trial, three prosecution witnesses, including the prosecutrix, had already been examined. The petitioner argued that the requested electronic records could help establish whether he was present at the alleged place of occurrence.

The State opposed the request, primarily relying on the victim's privacy and submitting that the accused would have an opportunity to lead defence evidence at the appropriate stage.

Court's Observation

The High Court noted that Section 94 BNSS empowers a court to require production of documents, electronic communications and other material when necessary or desirable for an investigation, inquiry or trial. CDRs and tower location records can constitute relevant evidence depending on the circumstances.

Justice Mahra also stressed that the two competing constitutional interests had to be balanced.

“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.”

The Court observed that privacy safeguards could be adopted, including production in a sealed cover, redaction of irrelevant material and limited inspection. It further noted the need to consider preservation where electronic records could otherwise be deleted under service-provider retention policies.

Decision

The High Court found that the trial court had rejected the application solely because it included the victim's mobile number, without examining whether preservation was necessary or whether safeguards could adequately protect her privacy.

“The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained.”

The Court set aside the June 1, 2026 order and remitted the matter to the trial court, directing it to 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 period.

The writ petition was allowed to that extent.

Case Details:

Case Title: Sumit Patwal v. State of Uttarakhand

Case Number: WPCRL/1247/2026

Judge: Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Decision Date: July 17, 2026