The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to stop the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from examining a mobile phone seized during a money-laundering probe, making it clear that a lawful investigation cannot be stalled merely on the ground of privacy. The court observed that privacy rights do not prevent authorities from examining digital devices if the probe is conducted within the bounds of law.
The matter came up before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi.
Read also:- Drug Sample Delay Breaks Case: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Company Directors
Background of the Case
The case was filed by Kolkata-based businessman Jitendra Mehta, whose iPhone 15 Pro Max was seized by the ED during a search conducted at his residence on January 8, 2026. He was later summoned under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for a forensic examination of the device.
Mehta approached the Supreme Court claiming that unrestricted access to his phone violated his fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. He argued that no case or predicate offence had been registered against him and that the ED had no legal basis to examine his personal data.
Arguments Before the Court
Senior Advocate C.A. Sundaram, appearing for Mehta, told the court that the phone had been seized without proper safeguards. He said the investigation amounted to a “fishing inquiry” and warned that once the phone was examined, the damage would be irreversible.
He argued that the law does not permit blanket access to private digital data and that some guidelines must exist to limit what investigators can view. He also pointed out that the petitioner was not even named as an accused.
However, the court was not convinced.
Court’s Observations
Chief Justice Surya Kant questioned the very basis of the privacy claim.
“Where is the violation of privacy? Once the investigation is lawfully being done, the agency is entitled to examine the material,” the CJI observed.
Read also:- Punjab & Haryana High Court Backs Pollution Board’s Emergency Powers, Sends Hotel to NGT Over Power Cut
The bench clarified that while personal data unrelated to the investigation cannot be made public or misused, that alone cannot stop an ongoing probe. The court said it was fully capable of protecting innocent citizens but such protection could not be extended to those suspected of wrongdoing.
Justice Kant further remarked that a mobile phone could be a crucial piece of evidence in financial crimes and that courts had previously allowed such examinations on a case-to-case basis.
Justice Bagchi added that unlike an arrest, there is no legal requirement to communicate reasons for a search under the PMLA. He also clarified that an ECIR relates to an offence, not necessarily to a specific individual.
Court’s Decision
After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court declined to grant any interim protection to Mehta. The bench refused to stop the ED from examining the phone and issued notice in the matter.
Read also:- Former MLA’s Security Concern: Calcutta High Court Says Centre to Decide on Protection
The court directed that the case be listed again on January 27, 2026, to examine the nature of allegations involved. It made clear that the petition had disclosed only selective facts and that no immediate interference was warranted.
With this, the plea to halt the forensic examination of the seized phone was rejected.
Case Title: Jitendra Kumar Mehta v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case No.: W.P.(Crl.) No. 30/2026
