The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a public interest litigation, or PIL, against a new law allowing Income Tax Department officers to search and seize personal electronic devices.
The plea challenged the constitutional validity of expanded search-and-seizure powers proposed under the Income Tax Act of 2025, particularly provisions enabling searches of ‘computer systems’ and ‘virtual digital space’, which has been read to include personal electronic devices, cloud infrastructure, and electronic communications.
The court said the petitioner – entrepreneur Vishwaprasad Alva – could approach concerned authorities with representation for clarification of the law that will come into effect on April 1. The main concern raised by the petitioner was regarding the provision exempting officials from disclosing the reasons for the search to the assessee or Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde argued the new law would cause unnecessary harassment to tax payer. “… while I concede reasons need not be disclosed in advance, there should be a mechanism by which reason should be within in the institution so it can later relied upon,” he said, referring to a Comptroller Auditor-General report on the section.
“Also my lords.. a system can be made better so assesses are not unnecessarily harassed.”
But Chief Justice Surya Kant, heading the bench, suggested the petitioners’ concern is an “initial apprehension”.
“This is an initial apprehension. There are provisions which are sometimes innocuously made but which looks like they can be misused.. so courts may have to examine it later. There are provisions which are capable of misuse but are streamlined over time. These provisions are often for the big tax evaders, etc.,” he said.
Meanwhile, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, also on the bench, said, “We cannot second-guess a provision to the extent of remedy provided. Remedy is good enough for us…”
The court recorded: “Petitioner seeks to withdraw as he wants to approach competent authority in Government of India as he seeks clarification of Section 249 of IT Act 2025 (S. 132 in old Act).”
What is the plea?
At the core of the plea is the expansive definition of ‘computer systems’.
According to the petition, the provision permits IT officials to access personal laptops and mobile phones, as well as emails, private chats, cloud-stored data, and electronic communications on those devices and those stored on remote servers.
The new law even allows officials to override passwords and access controls.
The petitioner argued that this represented an unprecedented extension of traditional search-and-seizure powers into the digital sphere. Digital devices differ qualitatively from physical documents, he argued, noting they often vast volumes of sensitive and confidential data.
Such data, he argued, could extend well beyond the scope of any tax inquiry.
Allowing unfettered access to such data, without prior judicial authorisation, equals a grave invasion of privacy of personal information as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Specifically, the petition challenged clauses that permit search-and-seizure based on a belief a person ‘will not’ or ‘would not’ produce documents if summoned, or that assets ‘would not be disclosed’ for tax purposes.
Hegde argued that these provisions create an ‘anticipatory search framework’, i.e., one in which highly intrusive powers can be exercised without any existing violation of law or proven non-compliance. It was also pointed out current law already provides mechanisms that are less intrusive.
Authorising full-scale digital searches on speculative grounds, the petitioner submitted, fails the constitutional test of proportionality and necessity.