On December 13, 2024, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal issued an ex parte interim order restraining the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from accessing and copying specified data on Santiago Martin’s mobile phone and electronic devices used by Future Gaming employees. The Court also stayed summons only to the extent that they required attendance for extracting data from those devices. The order was case-specific and did not create a permanent, nationwide ban on digital searches.
What the Supreme Court ordered
The applicants—Future Gaming and Hotels Services Pvt. Ltd. and Santiago Martin—sought protection after ED searches. Reporting on the two-page order says the Court restrained the ED and its officers from accessing and copying:
- contents of Martin’s mobile phone; and
- contents of electronic devices belonging to Future Gaming employees.
The Court separately stayed the ED summons insofar as they required the concerned people to appear for extraction of data stored on the devices. That wording did not cancel every summons, stop all questioning or halt the entire investigation.
The Court issued notice to the Centre, the ED and its officers and directed the petition to be heard with related proceedings concerning the seizure and examination of electronic devices, including matters associated with Amazon employees and the Newsclick investigation. The scope of the restraint is reported by The Indian Express and DT Next.
#1 Best Overall
- Hardware encrypted drive
- Simple to use pin access. RPM-5400
- Administrator password feature
- Bus powered
- Utilizes Military Grade FIPS PUB 197 Validated Encryption Algorithm
Why the ED had searched
The ED investigation followed a complaint by Meghalaya Police concerning allegations about Future Gaming’s conduct in Meghalaya’s lottery business, including claims that the business was illegally captured or monopolised. Those are allegations attributed to the complaint and investigating authorities, not findings that Martin or the company has been convicted.
In November 2024, the ED reportedly searched about 22 locations across six states and seized approximately ₹12.41 crore in cash, according to The Indian Express. Media reports also referred to 17 mobile phones, computer hard drives, pen drives and email backups. The formal seizure memo—not a media summary—would determine the complete inventory.
Rank #2
- Utilizes Military Grade FIPS PUB 197 Validated Encryption Algorithm
- Super fast USB 3.0 Connection - Data transfer speeds up to 10X faster than USB 2.0
- Software Free Design - With no admin rights needed
- Sealed from Physical Attacks by Tough Epoxy Coating
- Brute Force Self Destruct Feature
Seizure is not the same as examining data
The order’s practical importance becomes clearer when the stages of a digital investigation are separated:
| Stage | What it means | What the reported order addressed |
|---|---|---|
| Seizure | Taking physical custody of a phone, computer or storage device. | Not reported as an order returning every device or invalidating the searches. |
| Retention | Keeping the device while proceedings continue. | Not generally prohibited by the reported directions. |
| Unlocking or examination | Opening the device or reviewing its contents. | Access to the specified contents was restrained. |
| Forensic imaging or extraction | Making a copy or pulling selected data, including through an extraction tool. | Copying and extraction covered by the restraint and the limited summons stay. |
| Use as evidence | Relying on extracted material in a prosecution or attachment proceeding. | No final ruling was reported declaring all electronic evidence unusable. |
Why phones and laptops raise a privacy problem
The petitioners argued that a modern device can contain years of correspondence, financial records, medical information, photographs, location history, passwords, business plans and data belonging to other people. An employee’s device may also hold family, client or unrelated workplace information. Copying an entire device can therefore collect much more than material relevant to the suspected offence.
Recommended Free Tools
Rank #3
- Slim durable design to help take your important files with you
- Vast capacities up to 6TB[1] to store your photos, videos, music, important documents and more
- Back up smarter with included device management software[2] with defense against ransomware
- Help secure your important files with password protection and hardware encryption
- 3-year limited warranty
Those concerns place the case within the wider constitutional debate over privacy, proportionality and digital searches. The interim order itself did not finally decide that every device search is unconstitutional or establish a universal privacy test.
What the order does—and does not—mean
- It does: temporarily bar access to and copying of the specified device contents in this proceeding.
- It does: restrict the identified summons when attendance is demanded for device-data extraction.
- It does not: amount to a final judgment on all digital searches by the ED or other agencies.
- It does not: declare Martin innocent, dismiss the ED case or invalidate the November searches.
- It does not: establish that every seized device must be returned, destroyed or permanently excluded from evidence.
- It does not: resolve every question about passwords, biometric unlocking, decryption or cloud accounts.
The wider legal questions
The connected litigation highlights issues that a definitive procedure would need to address:
Rank #4
- Easily store and access 2TB to content on the go with the Seagate Portable Drive, a USB external hard drive
- Designed to work with Windows or Mac computers, this external hard drive makes backup a snap just drag and drop
- To get set up, connect the portable hard drive to a computer for automatic recognition no software required
- This USB drive provides plug and play simplicity with the included 18 inch USB 3.0 cable
- The available storage capacity may vary.
- a warrant, judicial authorisation or clearly recorded statutory basis;
- a search scope tied to the suspected offence, with date or keyword limits where feasible;
- forensic imaging, hash values and a documented chain of custody;
- segregation of irrelevant, privileged, medical or journalistic material;
- access logs identifying which officer viewed which files;
- a secure process for disputed or overbroad extraction; and
- rules for backups and accounts reachable from a seized device.
Investigators may argue that broad imaging is needed to preserve deleted or encrypted evidence and prevent remote wiping. Privacy advocates may argue that relevance and minimisation must come first. The available reporting shows these questions remained under consideration; it does not show that the Supreme Court had issued final nationwide guidelines by August 18, 2026.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.The ED’s position
Contemporaneous coverage reported that ED officials viewed the restraint as significant but said the agency had other evidence in the case. That response matters because the order restricted specified digital access, not every investigative route, witness examination or non-digital material.
Timeline
| Date | Development |
|---|---|
| November 2024 | ED searches were reported at about 22 locations in six states; cash and electronic material were reportedly seized. |
| December 13, 2024 | Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal granted ex parte interim relief restricting access, copying and specified extraction summons. |
| December 25, 2024 | Indian media published details of the interim order and the connected digital-device proceedings. |
| February 17, 2025 | DT Next reported that the matter was listed with connected cases; a listing was not a final judgment. |
| May 30, 2025 | A later property-attachment dispute referred to an Appellate Tribunal order concerning Martin-linked proceedings. |
| June 9, 2026 | Hindustan Times reported a Madras High Court challenge by Martin-linked parties to property attachments. That dispute concerned properties, not a final ruling on device access. |
| August 18, 2026 | No final device-access outcome is established here without checking the latest Supreme Court docket or order. |
Current status
The December 2024 direction should therefore be read as temporary protection while the Court considered a broader set of digital-device disputes. Later litigation involving property attachment does not by itself decide whether, when or how the ED may ultimately examine the seized phones, computers or storage media.
The safest summary is narrow: the Supreme Court stopped the ED, for the covered devices and at that stage of the case, from accessing and copying their contents and stopped summons used specifically to compel data extraction. It did not end the investigation or announce a general rule that agencies can never inspect electronic devices.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
