How to get call records of a person? Can CDRs be used as evidence in Court?

INTRODUCTION:

In the digital age, where communication is largely driven by mobile technology, Call Detail Records (CDRs) have emerged as critical tools in various domains—including law enforcement and legal proceedings. A Call Detail Record is a digital footprint of a telephone call, capturing vital metadata such as the time, duration, source and destination numbers, and cell tower locations. While CDRs do not contain the content of conversations, the wealth of information they provide has proven invaluable in criminal investigations, civil disputes, and intelligence gathering. This article explores the structure and significance of CDRs, their role in legal contexts, and the legal and ethical considerations surrounding their use in courtrooms.

WHAT IS CDR?

As the name suggests, ‘Call records’ or ‘call track records’, are simply the systematic logs of telephonic calls made from a particular number and/or device to other numbers.

Call Data Records may include information like:

• How many calls a person has made
• To which numbers
• Time & Duration of calls
• Which Tower the person received network from while making the particular call

The tower is identified by its unique tower number. The location is under a sphere of 500 m, and is not always precise. Though with the introduction of GPS, it is now more possible than ever for law enforcement agencies, in collaboration with network service providers to pin the exact latitude and longitude from where the calls were made, or even to locate the current location of a moving subscriber.

CDRs are different from phone tapping. CDR contains information about the results of interaction, rather than the content of the interaction, for example, time, date and duration instead of a recording of what the person talked about on a phone call. Phone tapping is done by both governmental and non-governmental (private) agencies by using equipment. This is mostly done for security purposes, where suspects’ phones are tapped, their exact location tracked and their activities monitored. Private agencies often do it illegally with imported equipment. This, of course, is in violation of the Right to Privacy. On the other hand, Call Detail Records are available with the telecom companies that one is subscribed to. For example, as a user of Airtel, a person’s CDR will be available with Airtel.

Call Data is stored by telecom companies for a period of 6 months, in accordance with the government guidelines. Due to high storage costs for the humongous amount of data that could be accumulated (almost amounting to several Petabytes per year), telecom companies choose to store only a limited amount of data, which is six months, or a year and archive the rest of it to tapes. These archives cannot be easily retrieved except in situations where there is governmental pressure, for example, in high profile cases or cases in which there is an immediate threat to national security.

HOW TO OBTAIN IT?

The Call Detail Records (CDRs) are obtained legally through a court order or by a request from a law enforcement agency, authorized under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The first sine-qua-non for obtaining the Call Records is that a Court is satisfied that access to such recordings is necessary for expeditious disposal of a case. On a prayer by any of the parties, the Court can direct competent law enforcing agency or appropriate authority to request the Call Records from the concerned Telecom Company. If a phone number is registered under a particular Telecom Company, its Call Record can be accessed only through that company.

Law enforcement agencies both at the central and state level — the CBI, Income Tax department, intelligence agencies, police, counter-terrorism agencies such as the NIA and the ATS — are allowed access to CDR during investigation, subject to certain permissions. In 2014, the Bombay High Court also allowed the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to seek CDR to investigate market frauds. Under the rules, only an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police — a DCP-rank officer in a commissionerate — can write to the nodal officer of a mobile network service provider seeking the CDR of persons in connection to an investigation. Normally, a police station sends the numbers for which they need CDR to the designated police officer who emails it to the service provider.

In sensitive cases, such as ones suspected to be linked to terror, murder or a rape when an accused is on the run and has to be arrested, an urgent request can ensure that the CDR is sent in half an hour by the mobile network service provider. In other cases it can take up to a fortnight.

It is pertinent to mention here that we have discussed so far that how a CDR can be obtained by an investigating agency. But if the investigating agencies haven’t called for the CDR & have not made it an exhibit in a case, any of the parties can file an Interlocutory Application (IA) under Section 91 of CrPC which corresponds to Section 94 of BNSS for seeking the direction to the concerned telecom company to present & provide the call details record of a specific person of a specific time interval.

Individuals or entities without proper authorization cannot disclose CDRs, and doing so is a violation of the law particularly breach of privacy of a person. Privacy as a fundamental right is through protected under Article 21 of Indian Constitution but for the ends of justice obtaining someone’s call records becomes indispensable encroaching upon his right of privacy. But it has to be done following due procedure of law. Hence The CDR can be obtained under the statutory provisions of law contained in section 91 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Or under section 5(2) of Indian Telegraph Act 1885, read with rule 419(A) Indian Telegraph Amendment rule 2007. The guidelines were also issued in 2016 by Ministry of Ministry of Home Affairs for seeking Call details records (CDRs).

EVIDENTIARY VALUE:

Call Details Records (CDRs) can be used as effective pieces of evidence to assist the court in ascertaining the facts of the particular case and inquiring about the commission of an offence, and according to the judicial pronouncements, it is made clear that CDRs can be used supporting or secondary evidence in the court. However, on the sole basis of it no conviction can be made.

Call Records are admissible as valid evidences in Courts and Tribunals under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 65B provides, “any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document”. The Supreme Court too recently directed Telecom companies to maintain call data records (CDRs) and other relevant electronic records seized during an investigation in a segregated and secure manner.

The CDRs must be certified by the concerned telecom service provider. This is often done through a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with electronic records. The CDRs should ideally be digitally signed by the service provider to ensure authenticity. This certificate is crucial as it validates the electronic records. It must state that the CDRs were produced by a computer during regular use and that the information contained in the records is derived from the information fed into the computer in the usual course of activities.

The certificate should contain details about the computer system, the method of data production, and the process of producing the records to establish reliability.
By following these below mentioned steps and ensuring compliance with the legal provisions and guidelines, CDRs can be effectively presented and proved in an Indian court of law.

• Legal Acquisition: Ensure that the Call Detail Records (CDRs) are obtained legally through a court order or by a request from a law enforcement agency, authorized under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• Section 65B Certificate: Obtain a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, from the telecom service provider, verifying the authenticity of the CDRs as electronic records, detailing how the records were produced and confirming their accuracy.
• Witness Testimony: Present witnesses, such as law enforcement officers and telecom company employees, who can testify about the procedure followed to obtain and handle the CDRs, ensuring their availability for cross-examination.
• Chain of Custody: Maintain a clear chain of custody from the time the CDRs were obtained until they are presented in court to demonstrate that they have not been tampered with.
• Corroborative Evidence: Support the CDRs with additional evidence, such as witness statements and forensic evidence, to strengthen their relevance and reliability in proving the case.
  Relevant Legal Provisions:
• Indian Telegraph Act, 1885: Section 5(2) provides the legal framework for interception of messages in certain situations.
• Information Technology Act, 2000: Section 69 deals with the powers to intercept, monitor, or decrypt any information through any computer resource.
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 65B which now corresponds to Section 63 of BSA, 2023 deals with the admissibility of electronic records.

Hence to sum up, CDR is an electronic record (computer printout) of the data in server of telecom companies. S 65B (1) of evidence Act provides such an electronic record is admissible if it is enclosed with the certificate U/S 65B (2) read with S (4) of said Act. Thus in general the nodal officer from such telecom company has an access to the data of server with unique id. He would take printouts and provide in 13 column CDR form to investigating agency. He can enclose his 65B/4 certificate with print of CDR. He can be called into the court to prove the certificate and to state that he has retrieved CDR as per above procedure. This evidence with SDR [subscriber details report] will link the incriminating cell numbers of communicators with call details in CDR to prove incriminating contacts. Also the presence of communicators at certain relevant places can be proved by tower locations found in CDR as per the tower ids.

USAGE:

CDR plays a significant role in investigations and cases in the courts. It can be used as pivotal evidence in court proceedings to prove or disprove certain facts & circumstances. Power of Interception of Call detail records is allowed for reasonable grounds and only by the authorized authority as per the laws.

Most important, the records also reveal the location from where the calls were made, which is many times crucial in crime investigations. This helps in establishing the location of a person on a given day. That information would be helpful, for example, in proving or disproving a suspect’s presence at the scene of a crime around the time it was committed.

Other than being used as evidence in Courts, Call Records are may be used inter alia for certain other purposes such as: use for investigation by law enforcement agencies, use as evidence by Arbitrators, for tracing absconding or missing persons, for retrieving lost or stolen mobile phones, or for other personal use.

CDRs can reveal communication patterns between individuals, such as the frequency of calls, duration of calls, and the type of communication (voice, SMS, etc.). 

CDRs help verify a suspect’s alibi or timeline of events. For example, if someone claims they were not in contact with a person at a certain time, CDRs can prove otherwise. For an example if suspect claims that they were on the phone with their mother at 10 PM during a robbery. CDR check showed that no call was made or it happened at a different time — their alibi falls apart.

For an example of a victim’s phone receives a call minutes before their death. That call’s CDR may show who made the last contact

CDR cell tower data can be cross-referenced with: CCTV footage timestamps, GPS records, traffic or toll data. This corroborates movement and presence at a location.

JUDGEMENTS :

1.Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473
 This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India outlines the requirements for the admissibility of electronic evidence, including CDRs, under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.  (Vide Para 14 of  of  the same)

2.Union Of India vs Cdr. Ravindra V. Desai AIR 2018 SC,2754
The admissibility of Call Detail Records (CDRs) as electronic evidence was addressed in paragraph 32 of the aforementioned Judgement. The Court observed that CDRs, being a form of electronic record, are inherently admissible in evidence. However, the method of proving such records must comply with legal requirements, specifically the provisions of Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Court emphasized that objections regarding the mode or method of proof should be raised at the time the document is marked as an exhibit during the trial. If such objections are not raised at that stage, they cannot be entertained later. This principle ensures that any deficiencies in the mode of proof can be addressed promptly, allowing the court to provide an opportunity to rectify them.

3.State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi VS Nizamuddin @ Nizam – Delhi 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3907

The Delhi High Court held that while the court can order the production of CDR and tower location details, it must balance this with privacy concerns. The court has restricted the production of call details to only those relevant to the investigation, such as those of the Investigating Officer and the raiding team, while protecting the identity of informants.
(See Para 8 of the said Judgement)

4.State Of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi AIR 2005 SC 359
Honourable SC observed that the entitlement of the accused to invoke Section 91 CrPC typically arises at the stage of defense, not during the framing of charges. Courts have ruled that the necessity or desirability of documents must be assessed based on the stage of the proceedings.

5.Paramjit Kaur VS State of Haryana 2023 
The Punjab and Haryana HC has upheld the authority to order the production of CDR and tower location details under Section 91 CrPC in the instance case & the trial court was directed to issue necessary orders for the preservation and production of call details and tower location details as part of the proceedings under Section 91 CrPC.

6.Deepak Nagiya v. State (NCT of Delhi)
CDR details cannot be used to deny bail if there is no other incriminating evidence.

7.Bharat Kumar Goswami vs The State Of Delhi ,2023
Honourable Delhi HC ruled that although the Call Detail Records (CDRs) may be an important and effective piece of evidence, which may facilitate and assist courts in ascertaining the presence of different participants in commission of an offence, the same can only be taken as supporting or a corroborative piece of evidence, and conviction cannot be made solely on basis of the CDR.

In conclusion, CDRs play crucial role in modern legal investigations, surveillance protocols, and data governance. As technology continues to evolve, so too must the legal frameworks that regulate the collection, usage, and admissibility of call detail records. A balanced approach—one that safeguards individual privacy while enabling legitimate law enforcement efforts—is essential to uphold justice and public trust in an increasingly digital world.