6. GENERAL OBSERVATION OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE COLLECTION PROCEDURE IN NEPAL Collection and Seizure of Electronic Devices As a matter of practice, when law enforcement officials harbor suspicions or receive secret information, they often promptly seize electronic devices from the suspects. The suspects are presented with an arrest warrant obtained either from the court or an emergency arrest warrant in accordance with the law. Once apprehended, law enforcement officials methodically follow procedures of search and seize instruments pertinent to the ongoing investigation. This process adheres to specific procedures outlined in general criminal procedural laws and specialized laws, such as those related to narcotics cases nevertheless there is no hard and fast rule relating to digital evidences and the devices, even when not-associated with the crime are seized and all access to private and nonwarranted digital data is cut off from the accused. Examination of Digital Content Post-seizure, law enforcement officials record the seizure of electronic evidence, taking not just the physical device but also its electronic content for examination. Surprisingly, there is no court warrant requirement to delve into the details of the electronic content of the seized device. Despite the Supreme Court of Nepal emphasizing privacy rights and mandating court warrants for call details and location data, there exists no specific guideline concerning the realization of digital evidence. Devices sent for investigation lack regulation or specific protocols. This absence of protocol denies the data subject (suspect) an opportunity to consent to the investigation of their devices, leading to potential self-incrimination. Such practices seem to contradict the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Nepal, which prohibit self-incrimination. Moreover, during the seizure of digital evidence, suspects are often required to provide security patterns or lock codes for their digital devices, which further violates the principle of self-incrimination. The practice of examination of digital evidences have evolved without proper rules to guide them, and traditional process of examination have been interpreted to cover the procedure of examination of digital evidence. Even though it has been contended by the investigating authority time and again that a judicial warrant for collecting digital evidence creates a backlog of cases, nevertheless, this cannot be accepted as a basis of denial of constitutional rights. Therefore, there is a sheer necessity to create effective legal mechanisms which 30