The Hindu Editorial Analysis
30 June 2025
Revisit digital search powers under the I-T Bill 2025
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 08)
Topic: GS 2: Government Policies & Interventions
GS 3: Internal Security (Cyber Security, Surveillance), Right to Privacy, Digital Governance
Constitutional Provisions: Article 21 – Right to Privacy, Judicial Review, Proportionality Doctrine
Context:
The Income-Tax Bill, 2025 introduces a provision allowing tax authorities to access an individual’s “virtual digital space” during search and seizure operations. While meant to modernize enforcement in the digital age, it raises major concerns related to privacy, overreach, surveillance, and lack of safeguards.
Key Issues Raised
- Expansion of Search Powers into Digital Spaces
The proposed bill goes beyond traditional physical search provisions (under Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961) to include digital spaces such as email accounts, WhatsApp chats, cloud storage, social media, and more. The term “other similar platforms” is undefined and open-ended, which may lead to excessive and arbitrary intrusion. - Weak Justification and Disproportionate Intrusion
The digital presence of individuals often includes personal and professional information about multiple stakeholders. Without clear limitations, digital searches could infringe upon the rights of friends, family, professional contacts, and even journalists—compromising both privacy and freedom of expression. - Lack of Procedural Safeguards
There is no mandatory requirement of prior authorisation, judicial oversight, or disclosure of “reason to believe” before digital searches. This undermines the principles of transparency and accountability. The Supreme Court in several rulings has emphasized that search and seizure is a serious invasion of privacy. - Contravention of Proportionality Principle
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court held that any restriction on privacy must meet a four-fold test:
- Legitimate aim
- Necessity
- Proportionality
- Least intrusive means
The I-T Bill 2025 fails this standard by not ensuring that digital access is the last resort or least invasive method.
- Global Best Practices Overlooked
Countries like the U.S. and Canada require a high threshold before allowing digital searches. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court (Riley v. California) mandates strong protections due to the deeply personal nature of digital data. - Threat to Press Freedom and Confidentiality
The bill could jeopardize the work of journalists and whistleblowers by exposing their confidential data, sources, and communications. Even under existing law, courts have consistently interpreted such powers narrowly.
Way Forward
- Clearly define what constitutes “virtual digital space”
- Introduce prior judicial authorisation and neutral oversight
- Require documented “reason to believe” before any digital intrusion
- Include procedural safeguards and redressal mechanisms
- Align provisions with global data privacy and surveillance norms
- Maintain the balance between enforcement and citizen rights
Conclusion:
The proposed digital search powers under the Income-Tax Bill 2025 may strengthen tax enforcement but risk undermining the fundamental right to privacy. As digital governance expands, the state must adopt a rights-based, proportionate, and transparent approach. Surveillance without checks is not reform, but a constitutional regression.