Karnataka High Court Upholds FIR Against Police Officer for Unauthorized Access to Woman’s Call Detail Records
On May 29, 2025, the Karnataka High Court refused to quash a criminal case against Police Sub-Inspector Vidya M.V., who is accused of unlawfully obtaining the Call Detail Records (CDR) of a woman without authorization or an ongoing investigation. Justice Suraj Govindaraj emphasized that merely holding the position of a police officer does not grant the authority to access any citizen’s CDR without a legitimate investigative purpose.
Case Background
The case originated from a private complaint filed by Bhavana S., alleging that Sub-Inspector Vidya, along with other accused individuals, accessed her CDR without proper authorization and shared it with a co-accused against whom she had previously filed a complaint. It was further alleged that the co-accused misused the obtained details to harass her.
Legal Proceedings
The petitioner sought to quash the FIR registered under Sections 354(d), 409, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 66(D) and 66(E) of the Information Technology Act. The defense argued that the CDR was obtained in the course of official duties and that, without a sanction order under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, criminal proceedings should not have been initiated.
Court’s Observations
Upon reviewing the case, the Court noted that Sub-Inspector Vidya was not involved in any investigation related to the complainant and had obtained the CDR at the request of other officers. Justice Govindaraj highlighted that accessing an individual’s CDR without proper authorization infringes upon the right to privacy, as established in the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. The Court stated: “The CDR records of any person are personal, private details governed by the Right to Privacy as elucidated by the Honourable Supreme Court in Justice Puttaswamy’s case.”
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court’s decision underscores the importance of safeguarding individual privacy rights and sets a precedent that unauthorized access to personal data by law enforcement officials is subject to legal scrutiny.