THE Supreme Court, in its recent ad-interim Order in Future Gaming & Hotels Services Pvt Ltd. versus Directorate of Enforcement, denied the Enforcement Directorate (ED) access to electronic devices related to the investigation of alleged money laundering activities by Santiago Martin and his company.
This case delves into the conflict between individual privacy rights and the powers of law enforcement agencies to access personal data, raising questions about the balance between these competing interests in contemporary India.
This case highlights the evolving dynamics between an individual’s right to privacy and the powers granted to investigating agencies. At its heart, the case questions how much access law enforcement should have to personal data during investigations. This case could shape future privacy protections in India.
The story behind the case
Santiago Martin, widely known as a ‘Lottery King’, runs businesses linked to lotteries through Future Gaming & Hotels Services Pvt Ltd. The ED launched an investigation into alleged money laundering activities involving him and his company under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
As part of the probe, the ED demanded access to Martin’s electronic devices, including his iPhone and computers belonging to employees. Martin and his team pushed back, arguing that such invasive access would violate their fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. They feared the breach could expose sensitive data irrelevant to the investigation.
The petitioners took the matter to the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a legal showdown over privacy and enforcement powers. The case resonated deeply, as it touched upon fears shared by many— how vulnerable is personal data in the hands of authorities, and where should the line be drawn?
The ad-interim relief
On December 13, 2024, a Supreme Court Bench led by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal issued an ad-interim Order in Martin’s favour.
The court restrained the ED from accessing and copying data from Martin’s electronic devices without adequate justification. It also paused the effect of summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA, especially those demanding access to electronic devices.
The Order came as a relief not just for Martin but for citizens across the country, signaling that privacy remains a fundamental right deserving protection even when investigations are underway. It also demonstrated that while investigations are critical, they cannot trample upon constitutional freedoms.
Privacy as a fundamental right
Privacy has become one of the most talked-about rights in India since the lodestar 2017 case Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) versus Union of India, which recognised privacy as intrinsic to personal liberty, dignity and autonomy. This case also led to a nuanced examination of privacy concerns, particularly concerning data and official government actions.
Martin’s case builds on that legacy. This ad-interim Order reaffirms that the right to privacy is not just theoretical— it demands active protection, even in the face of criminal investigations. It highlights the judiciary’s evolving role as a guardian of privacy in an era where technology enables unprecedented surveillance.
It sends a clear message that electronic devices, often containing intimate aspects of people’s lives, cannot be treated as mere data repositories for law enforcement agencies to exploit.
The challenges for investigating agencies
Investigating agencies such as the ED face growing difficulties in tackling financial crimes in today’s digital age. Criminals often hide illegal activities using encrypted communications and offshore transactions. To crack these cases, authorities rely heavily on digital evidence.
However, this dependence on personal data raises concerns about potential misuse, such as the unauthorised collection of sensitive information, data breaches leading to identity theft, or the exploitation of personal communications for purposes beyond the investigation.
For instance, there is a risk that irrelevant yet confidential data could be exposed or manipulated, compromising individuals' privacy and further eroding trust in the investigative processes.
What stops the authorities from overstepping their boundaries? Can they justify intrusions into electronic devices? The Santiago Martin case challenges agencies to develop more apparent protocols and demonstrate why access to personal data is essential and proportionate to their investigations.
Law enforcement agencies may argue that limiting data access slows investigations, particularly in cases involving complex financial networks. However, unregulated access can lead to abuse, harassment, and the targeting of individuals. This ad-interim Order reminds investigative bodies that their authority comes with responsibility and must be exercised cautiously.
Striking a balance: Privacy versus justice
The court’s ad-interim Order reminds us that privacy and justice are not enemies—they can coexist. Privacy does not mean immunity from investigation. At the same time, investigative powers should not become tools for harassment or fishing expeditions.
The principle of proportionality plays a key role here. Investigators must show that accessing personal data is necessary and that less intrusive methods will not work. This ensures that privacy is not sacrificed without substantial justification.
For instance, if investigators can gather evidence through financial records or third-party data, why demand access to phones containing private conversations and unrelated personal details?
For example, investigators relied on transactional records and communications between third-party entities in a high-profile financial crime case to build a strong case, demonstrating that invasive access to electronic devices was not always necessary. Investigative shortcuts cannot justify breaching privacy.
What can India learn from other countries?
India is not the only country facing these challenges. Globally, courts are defining how to protect privacy without compromising security.
United States: The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches. In Riley versus California (2014), the US Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement must get warrants to search cell phones, recognising their role as repositories of private information.
European Union: The GDPR, adopted in 2018, sets high standards for data protection. Cases like Google Spain SL versus Agencia Española de Protección de Datos introduced the 'right to be forgotten,' empowering individuals to control their data.
Canada: The Supreme Court in R. versus Fearon (2014) emphasised proportionality, allowing warrantless searches of phones only in emergencies and requiring strict oversight.
These examples highlight a global trend— courts are taking privacy more seriously. India’s judiciary seems to be following this path, signaling a broader commitment to balancing privacy and enforcement.
Building legal safeguards: Lessons for the future
The Santiago Martin case is a wake-up call. It highlights the urgent need for more explicit laws and stricter guidelines for data access, such as implementing a clear legislative framework that defines the boundaries of data retrieval, mandating judicial oversight for accessing electronic devices, and establishing independent bodies to monitor investigative practices to prevent misuse.
Moving forward, India must prioritise:
Judicial oversight: Courts must continue to monitor investigations, ensuring agencies do not overreach their powers.
Transparency and accountability: Agencies should justify their data requests in detail, preventing arbitrary intrusions.
Training and protocols: Investigators need training to handle data responsibly, respecting legal and ethical standards.
Data protection laws: Enforcing the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, will provide stronger legal foundations for privacy protection.
Privacy versus security: A difficult debate
Privacy protections may slow down investigations, allowing criminals to destroy evidence. Investigators worry about losing access to critical data during legal delays. At the same time, citizens fear unchecked surveillance and misuse of personal information.
This tug-of-war reflects larger societal questions— how much freedom are we willing to trade for security? And who decides the limits? The Santiago Martin case does not answer all these questions, but it does push us to think about them.
A precedent for the future
The Supreme Court’s ad-interim Order in Santiago Martin’s case marks a turning point in Indian privacy law. It reminds us that privacy is not an abstract right but a living, breathing principle that shapes our democracy. Investigations matter, but so do individual freedoms.
This ruling forces investigators to tread carefully, balancing the need for evidence with respect for personal boundaries. It also challenges lawmakers to create clearer frameworks for handling personal data.
As India moves deeper into the digital age, this case serves as both a warning and a guide— a reminder that privacy is not just a legal concept but a cornerstone of human dignity.
It underscores the importance of fostering a society where justice and privacy work hand in hand, ensuring a democratic framework resilient against the challenges of the future.
