The Uttarakhand High Court has directed the Dehradun District Magistrate to examine the citizenship application submitted by a person of Tibetan origin who migrated to India and “if everything is found to be in order”, then forward it to the Competent Authority in the Central Government within six weeks. The Court accordingly disposed of a writ petition seeking directions for processing and forwarding the petitioner's application under Section 6(i) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 

A single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari passed the direction while hearing a petition filed by the migrant-petitioner against the District Magistrate, Dehradun. The petitioner had approached the High Court stating that although he had moved an application under Section 6(i) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, the same had not been forwarded by the District Magistrate to the Central Government. 

In his petition, the petitioner consequently sought a direction to the District Magistrate to forward his application, along with the requisite report and necessary formalities, to the concerned authority within a time-bound manner. Importantly, among the other reliefs sought was a direction for the issuance of a certificate for citizenship by the virtue of naturalisation along with documents pertaining to the petitioner's application for citizenship.

During the hearing, the State raised the petitioner's particulars as disclosed in the writ petition, submitting that his date of birth was September 15, 1992 and that he had migrated from Tibet to India only on May 12, 2013.

“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to District Magistrate, Dehradun to examine the application along with documents enclosed with the application submitted by petitioner and if everything is found to be in order, then his application may be forwarded to the Competent Authority in Central Government within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order”, the Court directed.

Case: Tenzin Thinley Versus District Magistrate Dehradun [WPMS/2414/2026]

Click Here To Read/Download Order

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that an application seeking production of Call Detail Records (CDRs) and tower-location details “cannot be rejected solely on the ground of the victim's right to privacy when the records are prima facie relevant for a just adjudication of the case”.

Justice Alok Mahra held that while the accused's right to a fair trial and investigation under Article 21 and the victim's right to privacy are both constitutionally protected, the Trial Court is required to “strike a balance between the competing rights” and may adopt safeguards such as sealed-cover production, redaction of irrelevant material or limited inspection to uphold the same. Importantly, it was held that where there exists a “reasonable apprehension” that such records may be permanently destroyed, owing to the retention policy of the service provider, the Court is required to consider it's preservation so that relevant evidence is not lost.

The present case arose from an FIR lodged by the respondent alleging commission of rape upon his minor daughter by the accused persons, including the present petitioner. Following investigation and submission of charge-sheet against the petitioner and the co-accused, the Trial Court took cognizance and commenced the trial.

During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner filed an application under Section 94 BNSS seeking summoning of the CDRs, tower-location details and Customer Application Forms pertaining to the relevant mobile numbers, along with the requisite certificate in a sealed cover. However, the prosecution opposed the application principally on the ground that the victim was a juvenile and that summoning her CDRs would infringe her right to privacy. 

The Trial Court kept the application pending for more than three months and ultimately rejected it on June 1, 2026, solely on the ground that the application also sought the CDRs of the victim and that allowing the prayer would violate her privacy. The petitioner challenged the trial court's order, thus leading to the present writ petition.

The petitioner contended that the impugned order was contrary to the object and mandate of Section 94 BNSS. According to him, the prosecution case itself alleged that the petitioner and the other accused had committed the offence against the victim and that all the accused as well as the victim were using mobile phones during the relevant period. It was therefore argued that CDRs and tower-location details constituted material electronic evidence capable of establishing his presence or absence at the alleged place of occurrence. 

It was further submitted that such electronic evidence was relevant and admissible under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and could have a direct bearing on the petitioner's defence. Thus, by declining preservation and production of the records, the petitioner argued, the Trial Court had deprived him of a valuable opportunity to effectively defend himself, thereby infringing his fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21. 

Importantly, the petitioner also raised an apprehension that the records could be permanently deleted. Relying on the Unified Licence conditions issued by the Department of Telecommunications, it was submitted that telecom service providers were required to preserve CDRs only for a limited period of two years, after which the records could be permanently deleted. Immediate preservation was therefore sought so that potentially relevant electronic evidence was not irretrievably lost.

Opposing the writ petition, the State submitted that no illegality had been committed by the Trial Court. It argued that the prosecution evidence was still being recorded and that the accused would have adequate opportunity to lead defence evidence at the appropriate stage. According to the State, Section 94 BNSS merely empowers the Court or officer in charge of a police station to require production of documents or electronic records where such production appears necessary or desirable for investigation, inquiry or trial, and the discretion exercised by the Trial Court in declining the application did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction. 

Identifying the primary question for consideration as whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application seeking preservation and production of CDRs and tower location details solely because the records would infringe the victim's right to privacy, the Court observed:

“Section 94 of the B.N.S.S. empowers the Court to direct production of any document, electronic communication or other thing where such production appears necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation, inquiry or trial. Electronic records, including CDRs and tower location details, may constitute relevant evidence depending upon the facts of the case. Where there exists a reasonable apprehension that such records may be permanently destroyed owing to the retention policy of the service provider, the Court is required to consider their preservation so that relevant evidence is not lost.

The right of an accused to a fair investigation and fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and the victim's right to privacy are both constitutionally protected rights. The Court is, therefore, required to strike a balance between the competing rights.

An application seeking production of CDRs cannot be rejected solely on the ground of privacy if the records are prima facie relevant for a just adjudication of the case. At the same time, the trial Court may protect the victim's privacy by adopting appropriate safeguards, such as preservation of the records, production in a sealed cover, redaction of irrelevant material or permitting limited inspection, as the facts of the case may warrant.

In the present case, the learned trial Court rejected the petitioner's application solely on the ground that the prayer including the victim's mobile number, without examining whether preservation of the electronic records was necessary to prevent their destruction or whether suitable safeguards could adequately protect the victim's

privacy. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained”.

Consequently, without expressing opinion on the merits of the underlying criminal case, the Court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge.

It remitted the matter to the Trial Court with a direction to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 94 BNSS and pass appropriate orders for preservation of the CDRs, tower-location details and other connected electronic records pertaining to the specified mobile numbers for the period from April 1, 2024 to June 4, 2025, so that the records were not lost due to the retention policy of the service providers. 

The writ petition was accordingly allowed to that extent.

Case: Sumit Patwal Versus State Of Uttarakhand [WPCRL/1247/2026]

Click Here To Read/Download Order