The story so far: The Gujarat police, on Monday (August 17, 2026), reportedly seized devices belonging to independent journalist Ravi Nair while acting on a search warrant issued by a magistrate court.

The police also seized a laptop and an iPad belonging to Mr. Nair’s colleague, Sachi Hegde, who was at his residence at the time, as well as devices reportedly belonging to Mr. Nair’s son, according to media reports.

The seizures are in connection with a police case against Mr. Nair over a post on X related to a story he co-reported on the Adani Group, which was published by The Washington Post in October 2025.

The incident raises a broader legal question: What are the safeguards governing the seizure and examination of digital devices by investigating agencies?

What does the law say about the seizure of digital devices?

Under the old Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), a police officer could seize any property alleged or suspected to be stolen, or that was found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of an offence.

Foreigner dies during questioning at Surat station after train brawl; probe underway

Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) now contains the general power of a police officer to seize certain property. It allows a police officer to seize property that is suspected to be stolen or is found in circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of an offence. The provision itself does not specifically refer to digital devices.

Section 94 of the BNSS, which corresponds broadly to the old Section 91 of the CrPC, separately deals with the production of electronic material. It permits a court or the officer in-charge of a police station to require the production of a document, electronic communication, including a communication device, or other thing likely to contain digital evidence and considered necessary or desirable for an investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

Editorial | Limiting search and seizure: On digital devices and media professionals

Section 105 of the BNSS introduces a procedural safeguard for searches and seizures. It requires the process of conducting a search or taking possession of property, article or thing, including the preparation and signing of the seizure list, to be recorded through audio-video electronic means, preferably using a mobile phone. The recording must be forwarded without delay to the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class.

What is a hash value, and why does it matter?

A hash value is an important aspect in proving the originality of the electronic record, once it is seized or created. It is often described as a digital fingerprint of the file. If the contents of the file change, the resulting hash value will ordinarily change as well.

A hash value therefore provides a means of checking the integrity of an electronic record by comparing its value at different stages.

This becomes particularly important when electronic evidence is collected, copied or transferred during an investigation. Investigators can generate a hash value when acquiring the evidence and compare it with a later hash value to determine whether the contents have changed.

The Karnataka High Court addressed the importance of hash values in Umesh S/o Vittal Patil v. State of Karnataka. The Court described a hash value as a digital fingerprint and issued detailed guidelines for preserving electronic evidence. It directed that the hash value be collected at the time of seizure and again when a forensic image or clone of the device is created, so that the values can be compared. It also stressed the importance of documenting every transfer of the electronic evidence and maintaining a proper chain of custody.

The importance of hash values is also reflected in the current evidentiary framework. Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, read with its Schedule, requires the certificate accompanying certain electronic or digital records to contain information about the hash value or values of the record and the algorithm used to generate them.

Thus, for digital evidence, the hash value forms part of the broader chain of custody, helping to establish what was collected, how it was preserved, whether a forensic copy corresponds to the original, and whether the material relied upon later has been altered.

What have the courts said about safeguards for searches and seizures of digital devices?

The Supreme Court has recognised that the search and seizure of digital devices raises privacy concerns that are different from those involved in searching ordinary physical property. The issue of specific safeguards for digital-device searches and seizures is before the Supreme Court in Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union of India. The petition, filed in 2022, argues that existing laws do not adequately regulate the search, seizure and examination of digital devices and that unrestricted access to their contents can infringe the rights to privacy and against self-incrimination. The petition has been tagged with Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement. The matter remains pending.

During the hearing on November 7, 2023, the Court expressed concern about the breadth of investigative agencies’ powers over digital devices. Justice S.K. Kaul observed that it was difficult to accept that agencies had unrestricted powers of search and seizure and said that there “must be some guidelines”, particularly given that journalists’ devices could contain confidential sources. The Court directed the Union Government to formulate guidelines governing the seizure of digital devices by investigative agencies.

Published – August 19, 2026 03:07 pm IST