Hyderabad, June 18 (UNI) BRS Working President K.T. Rama Rao (KTR) today sent a written reply to the notice issued by the ACB on June 16, directing him to submit the mobile phone used in connection with the Formula E race case.

In his letter, KTR clarifies that such a direction violates fundamental rights and personal privacy guaranteed under the Constitution.

He mentioned that even the Supreme Court has observed the same in similar cases

Based on the ACB's earlier letter, KTR, named as a prime accused in the alleged transfer of Rs 55 crore to London-based Formula E Operations (FEO), appeared before the ACB at 1000 hours on Monday and cooperated with the investigation until 5:00 PM.

KTR, the son of former Chief Minister KCR, mentioned that he had responded to all queries raised by the officers during the course of the investigation and fully cooperated throughout.

In a statement, KTR revealed that after the investigation concluded on June 16, he was served another notice under Section 94 of the BNSS, asking him to submit the mobile phone used between November 1, 2021, and December 1, 2023, along with other electronic devices such as a laptop, tablet, iPad, etc.

KTR, however, noted that the notice issued under Section 94 of the BNSS did not specify the reason or the purpose for seeking these electronic devices, nor did it explain why they were necessary for the investigation.

He clarified that all official records relevant to the Formula E case are already available with the Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department of the Telangana Government.

He asserted that all decisions related to the case were made in his official capacity as Minister of that department.

KTR stressed that demanding submission of previously used personal electronic devices, despite there being no specific mention of them in the allegations, amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights granted to a citizen under the Constitution.

He pointed out that nowhere was it established that such electronic devices were necessary for the investigation.

KTR added that if any electronic devices are to be examined, strict protocols laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court must be followed to avoid any tampering or misuse of data.

He emphasised the importance of the right to privacy and the constitutional protection against self-incrimination, stating that no one should be compelled to submit devices without a valid, clear reason and that the data should not be used against the individual. He also mentioned a relevant case in which the Supreme Court granted interim relief to a petitioner and clearly instructed the Enforcement Directorate not to access or copy the contents of the petitioner’s mobile phone.

KTR noted that several such cases relating to the handling of electronic devices during investigations are still pending before courts. He finally stated that he had changed his mobile phone in the first quarter of 2024 and no longer possesses the old phone.

He also confirmed that he had not used any other electronic devices during the relevant period.

UNI KNR RN