Dev Arora
Introduction
Visualise a scenario where an investigating authority conducts an unauthorised raid against someone, confiscates her laptop and later extracts information that reveals the commission of a crime. Based on the information extracted, that individual is held liable for the crime. This scenario raises a significant legal question: Is the investigating officer liable for the violation of privacy and other fundamental rights of the individual?
In many jurisdictions, evidence obtained through unlawful procedures is typically deemed inadmissible according to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. However, in the Indian legal system, this evidence can be admitted in Courts.
This article will focus on the admissibility of evidence in the context of the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree and its relevance considering the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Right to Privacy in India.
Understanding The Doctrine
The doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree is a cornerstone of American law and emerges as a general principle of exclusionary evidence. This rule asserts that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in court. This doctrine was postulated by Justice Felix Frankfurter of the US Supreme Court in the famous case of Nardone v. United States. However, its roots trace back to the case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920). The fundamental assumption of this doctrine is that if the “tree”—the evidence source from which the evidence is derived—is tainted with illegality, the result—the “fruit”—is also tainted and thus unreliable in the courtroom. This notion extends the exclusionary rule to all derivative evidence—confessions, extraneous information derived from the first violation, etc.—as well as directly obtained evidence.
The doctrine keeps the integrity of legal proceedings when it prohibits allowing evidence that’s been illegally gained into courtrooms, thus repeating the notion of how the law must not at all be renounced on the altar of justice.
Illegally Obtained Evidence in India
The doctrine does not have a direct legal counterpart in India. However, the same was partly brought out in the case of Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor, where the court held that whenever authority is bestowed and prescribed to be used in a particular manner, then such authority has to be exercised in that manner and not in any other manner. However, this principle has changed over time.
According to Indian courts, illegally or improperly collected evidence is permissible before the court, provided such illegally or improperly collected evidence is proven to be genuine and relevant. The evidence should be according to the directions under the code of criminal procedure (CrPC), which is not to be followed strictly. This principle has been articulated by the courts in several landmark cases such as Magraj Patodia v. R.K. Birla; Poorna Mal v. Director of Inspection of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi; State of M.P. through CBI v. Paltan Mallah. Furthermore, in the seminal case of R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court recognized the admissibility of a taped conversation even though it was made without the consent of one of the parties. In this empirical approach, there is precedence for the benefit of doubt to the condemned over absolute deference to procedural formality and is, therefore, a manifestation of consequentialism.
Evolving Landscape of Privacy and Evidence Admissibility in India
The courts have shown a shift in their stance in the case of Selvi v. State of Karnataka. In this case, the apex court examined the legality of the scientific investigatory techniques and those of narcoanalysis and polygraph tests, warning that unrestrained use of investigative shortcuts may undermine due process and erode the credibility of the criminal justice system.
The observations in Selvi signal a growing judicial inclination to exclude evidence that was collected in violation of the Constitution, highlighting increasing concern for the rule of law in the legal process.
This trend gained further momentum in the historic judgement of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court recognised the right to privacy as a part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the constitution.
The ruling in Vinit Kumar v CBI represents a substantial shift from the long-standing legal doctrine that permitted the use of unlawfully obtained evidence if deemed relevant. In a progressive move, the Bombay High Court invalidated certain interception orders and directed the destruction of unlawfully intercepted communications. The court declined to accept evidence that had been illegally seized for the reason that accepting the principle “the end justifies the means” would empower government officials to have a free hand and bypass procedural safeguards and fundamental rights. The Court noted that such an approach would undermine the rule of law, and would lead to arbitrariness.
In the walks of the privacy judgement, the government has recently introduced the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, of 2023 which has significantly reinforced the legal framework for the protection of personal data. The Act seeks to regulate the processing of digital personal data by balancing the need for regulated use with the individual’s privacy.
Section 4 of the Act mandates that personal data can only be processed with the data principal’s consent or on lawful grounds. Importantly, the term ‘person’ is used in the section, which will include investigative agencies. According to the Act, personal data is any information relating to one person that can be used for this specific person’s identification, and its processing is permissible only within the confines of existing legal frameworks and validity requirements.
It can be argued that evidence obtained by illegal search and surveillance infringes upon the right to privacy, especially in the face of the enactment of the Data Protection Act, which grants robust safeguards. As a result, such evidence would be deemed inadmissible and null and void, thereby bringing the Indian law to the level of the poisonous tree . A move towards increased protection of individual rights against capricious governmental actions is reflected in the changing legal environment, which shows an increasing adoption of the exclusionary rule in cases involving constitutional violations.
Conclusion and Way Forward
Courts in India are gradually moving towards recognizing the supremacy of the right to privacy over the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence. The Bombay High Court, in the case of Vinit Kumar v. CBI, has taken a significant step by ordering the destruction of illegally obtained evidence. This indicates a shift towards a growing trend of preferring privacy.
Although the newly introduced Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, has replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no provision prohibiting the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence has been introduced. By excluding it, this raises some crucial questions: Is it legal for investigative agencies to use unauthorised methods in gathering evidence? Can investigative agencies use some unauthorised methods when no other legal methods are available or when delays in obtaining evidence could result in its destruction? Indeed, the main challenge here is striking a balance between the ‘right to privacy’ of the individual on the one hand and the state’s duties to ensure public safety and national security on the other hand.\
It is necessary to find a subtle and balanced solution that will protect citizens’ rights and still give the investigative agency the necessary means. The very pressing need is the formation of a robust, clear legal framework that makes legislative endeavours concur with juridical preferences.
The Author is a second-year student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
Constitutional Law Society 
Leave a comment