Karnataka High Court rejects call request to disclose investigation to police

The Karnataka High Court said that observing “the obligation to protect data must arise where the public interest and criminal investigation intersect” said digital payment intermediaries such as PhonePe did not disclose confidential information about transaction details/account vouchers under the law for police in criminal cases to investigate confidential information about transaction details/account vouchers.

“Protecting consumers’ privacy cannot go beyond the legal requirement of investigating officials to ensure evidence and to draw reasonable conclusions on the investigation. Confidentiality must coexist with the liability agreement,” the court noted.

Justice Nagaprasanna made these observations when he fired the petition filed by Phonepe Pvt. Limited

Subpoena question

The company questioned the subpoena issued by the CEN police station in rural Bangalore, asking the company to provide certain information about a complaint filed by someone who alleged that he used several digital payment gateways in 2022 while transferring various quantities to apps on online cricket.

PhonePe argues that under the Payment and Reconciliation Systems Act 2007 (PSS) Act (PSS) Act and the Banker Book Evidence (BBE) Act (1891), the bill applies to the Payment and Reconciliation Systems 2007, avoiding disclosure of information to anyone including the Police (PSS) Act (PSS) Act (PSS) Act (PSS) Act (PSS) Act (PSS) Act (PSS) Act (PSS) Act (PSS) Act (PSS) Act (PSS).

Legal authority

“There is no doubt, and there is no doubt that Section 22 of the PSS Act 2007 allows payment gateways to retain confidential documents of the payment system. The statute itself is exceptional to the statute itself. The provision itself may set forth the court authorization under the statute authorization of the court under the statute authorization of the court unless the disclosure requires compliance with an order passed by a valid jurisdiction court.

Therefore, the court said the investigator was a statutory authority and he acted under the powers granted by the Criminal Procedure Law when conducting the investigation, so the argument that the details could not be disclosed was unacceptable. The court pointed out that even the provisions of the BBE Act of 1891 stipulated information disclosure.