These countries demonstrate varying degrees of readiness in incorporating digital evidence into their legal systems, with ongoing efforts to update legislation and enhance capabilities for handling digital evidence in criminal cases. Following best practices of legality of search and seizure of digital evidence is worth discussion. a. India In India, there is no law regulating the field of search and seizure of electronic devices in a criminal investigation. In case of Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka, the High Court of Karnataka36, discussed the legislative framework under section 69(1) of Information Technology Act, 2000 where court laid down the detailed procedure to unlock the digital devices and email address. As per the directive given by the court, firstly, the investigating officer may request or give direction to provide passwords, biometrics etc. Alternatively, the officer can approach a court for a search and seizure order. The last resort in the process is hacking after procuring the court's order. Court stipulated that failure of the procedure leads to a negative presumption against the accused. On 7th November 2023, the Supreme Court of India issued a comprehensive guidelines for search and seizure of digital devices for protection of right to privacy which was the result of a petition filed by the Foundation of Media Professionals, a journalist group.37 Recently on 5 January 2024, the Supreme Court of India issued a notice to investigative agencies and the Delhi police on a petition filed by online portal where court has highlighted the lack of transparency and formal procedure when personal digital devices of journalist are seized during the raids38. b. United States of America The concern of privacy and legitimate search and seizure of digital device was addressed by Supreme Court of USA in Riley v. California and US v. Wurie on 29 April 201439. The debate revolves around whether police can search individuals' cell phones without a specific warrant after their arrest, especially when arrested for minor offenses. In some cases, such warrantless searches have uncovered evidence leading to more serious convictions. The appeal seeks to suppress this evidence, arguing it violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka, High Court of Karnataka, WP 11759/2020, Decided on March 12, 2021. https://www.scobserver.in/journal/guidelines-for-search-and-seizure-of-digital-devices-a-must-under-right-toprivacy-supreme-court-says/ 38 https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-notice-on-newsclick-plea-for-guidelines-on-seizure-of-digitaldevices/article67709600.ece 39 https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/search-and-seizure-and-right-to-privacy-in-digital-age#fn1 36 37 28