Strict deadline set for data parsing at Advocate’s office amidst concerns of procedural lapses

Strict deadline set for data parsing at Advocate’s office amidst concerns of procedural lapses

Issue

Whether the Revenue Department’s prolonged and allegedly irregular parsing of an Advocate’s seized digital data violates procedural fairness and data integrity, and if further time should be granted despite these concerns.

Facts

• Background: The petitioner, an Advocate, challenged the seizure of his digital devices by GST authorities, claiming attorney-client privilege. The Department alleged he was actively involved in a client’s fraud (Martkarma Technology) rather than just representing them.

• Previous Direction: The Court had previously authorized a controlled “parsing” (data extraction) process to separate relevant data from privileged communication, to be done within strict timelines and specific hours.

• Petitioner’s Grievance: The Advocate raised serious concerns regarding the ongoing process:

  • Parsing continued all day/night, violating the Court’s “limited hours” order.

  • CCTV cameras were allegedly removed during the process.

  • Sealing of devices was done by a private lab instead of the Court Commissioner.

  • Allegations of intimidation by Department officers were made.

• Revenue’s Defense: The Solicitor General argued that:

  • The “seal” referred to was a biometric lock, ensuring security.

  • Allegations of intimidation were exaggerated.

  • The delay was due to the large volume (3 TB) of data.

• Court’s Observation: The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the “best forensic lab” operating so slowly and acknowledged the gravity of the allegations regarding procedural lapses.

Decision

• Strict Cut-off: The Court granted the Revenue a final extension to complete the digital data parsing by November 30, rejecting any open-ended timeframe.

• Status Report: The Revenue must file a status report by December 2 ahead of the next hearing on December 4.

• Affidavit on Conduct: The Revenue was ordered to file an affidavit specifically addressing the Advocate’s apprehensions regarding the removal of CCTVs, intimidation, and the sealing process.

• Warning to Officers: The Court explicitly warned that the process relies on mutual trust and any officer found acting doubtfully or effectively intimidating the petitioner would be replaced.

• Safe-guards: The Court reiterated that the process must continue in the presence of High Court officials to ensure fairness.

Key Takeaways

Judicial Oversight on Digital Forensics: Courts are increasingly vigilant about how digital evidence is handled. Mere authorization to search does not grant the Revenue a free hand; delays or procedural lapses (like removing CCTVs) can invite strict judicial scrutiny.

Attorney’s Office Sanctity: While an Advocate’s office is not immune to search if they are implicated in a crime, the Court enforces stricter safeguards (presence of court commissioners, limited hours) to protect the privileged data of other clients.

Procedural Compliance is Mandatory: “Technical difficulties” or “volume of data” (e.g., 3TB) are not valid excuses for violating specific court directions regarding the time and manner of a search/seizure operation.