The story so far: The Gujarat police, on Monday (August 17, 2026), reportedly seized devices belonging to independent journalist Ravi Nair while acting on a search warrant issued by a magistrate court.
The police also seized a laptop and an iPad belonging to Mr. Nair’s colleague, Sachi Hegde, who was at his residence at the time, as well as devices reportedly belonging to Mr. The seizures are in connection with a police case against Mr. The incident raises a broader legal question: What are the safeguards governing the seizure and examination of digital devices by investigating agencies? It allows a police officer to seize property that is suspected to be stolen or is found in circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of an offence. The provision itself does not specifically refer to digital devices. It permits a court or the officer in-charge of a police station to require the production of a document, electronic communication, including a communication device, or other thing likely to contain digital evidence and considered necessary or desirable for an investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
Nair over a post on X related to a story he co-reported on the Adani Group, which was published by The Washington Post in October 2025. Under the old Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), a police officer could seize any property alleged or suspected to be stolen, or that was found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of an offence. Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) now contains the general power of a police officer to seize certain property. Section 94 of the BNSS, which corresponds broadly to the old Section 91 of the CrPC, separately deals with the production of electronic material.
Nair’s son, according to media reports.
The Karnataka High Court addressed the importance of hash values in Umesh S/o Vittal Patil v. State of Karnataka. The Court described a hash value as a digital fingerprint and issued detailed guidelines for preserving electronic evidence. It also stressed the importance of documenting every transfer of the electronic evidence and maintaining a proper chain of custody.
It directed that the hash value be collected at the time of seizure and again when a forensic image or clone of the device is created, so that the values can be compared.
