As more aspects of personal and financial life move online, individuals increasingly accumulate significant digital assets, including photographs, financial records, documents and other online data. However, Indian succession law has largely developed around tangible forms of property and the treatment of digital assets upon the death of their owner is largely unresolved. The decision of the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Sadhna Shah v. NIL represents an important judicial attempt to address this emerging issue, wherein the Court deliberated upon whether digital data is capable of being inherited by legal heirs.

Facts of the Case

Late Shri Shaishav Shah died intestate without a will. He was survived by his wife and daughter. The deceased had used an Apple iPhone and Apple ID/iCloud account which contained personal data of significant emotional and practical value to the family, including photographs, videos, documents, and contact lists. The family approached Apple to seek access to this data. Apple stated it could not retrieve data stored on the physical device and asked them to get formally appointed as administrators or legal personal representatives of the deceased's estate via a court order directing Apple to assist in the recovery of the deceased's data. Consequently, the family filed a petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking Letters of Administration (LOA) to regain access to these digital assets.

Arguments Before the Court

1. The petitioners argued that digital data is recognised as "movable property" or "assets" under Indian law. The petitioners relied upon various decisions adopting a broad definition of property, including. Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat,1 State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose,2 and Commissioner, HRE v. Sri Shirur Mutt,3 to contend that property encompassed corporeal and incorporeal, tangible, and intangible, assets. They also relied on the Madras High Court ruling in the case of Rhutikumari v. Zanmai Labs Pvt. Ltd.,4 which recognised proprietary interests in VDA, as they are identifiable, transferable and have economic value.
2. They cited rulings from Germany and Italy where courts recognized the rights of heirs to access the digital accounts of deceased persons.
3. They contended that the right to privacy is a personal right that extinguishes upon death and therefore cannot be used to prevent legal heirs from administering a digital estate.

Issues Considered by the Court

Whether Digital Data is "Property"?

The petitioners had pointed to Section 3 (36) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 ("General Clauses Act") as well as Section 2(21) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ("BNS") wherein "movable property" has been broadly defined to mean property of every description, except immovable property/ land and things attached to or permanently fastened to the earth. They argued that the concept of movable property was very broad and the definition is wide enough to accommodate certain forms of intangible property. Reference was also made to definition of "property" under Section 2(1)(v) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which expressly includes incorporeal and intangible assets, wide enough to cover cloud-stored data, and the recognition of virtual digital assets ("VDA") under Section 2(47A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. They further cited Sections 43 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ("IT Act") which criminalize the unauthorized access, copying, and misuse of data, to argue that the law recognizes data as a resource capable of legal protection, control, and possession. The Court was persuaded by the arguments and acknowledged that Indian legal framework was sufficiently expansive to accommodate digital data within the concept of property.

Whether Providing Access to the Deceased's Digital Assets Violates Right to Privacy?

The Court also considered whether providing legal heirs access to the deceased's digital assets would constitute infringement of the deceased's right to privacy. The petitioners contended that privacy is an inherently personal right that does not survive death. They also pointed to Section 14 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 ("DPDPA"), which permits a data principal to nominate a person to exercise rights on their death or incapacity. They argued that in the absence of a nominee appointed by the deceased, the rights relating to the management and access of the deceased's digital data logically devolve upon the legal heirs, who step into the position of the data principal for the limited purpose of administering the estate. The Court accepted the reasoning.

Final Ruling

The Court accepted the petition and granted the letter of administration. With the wife’s consent, the court appointed the deceased's daughter, as the sole administrator of the estate. It directed Apple to assist the administrator in recovering the deceased's data from both the iCloud account and, where technically feasible, from the physical device

Conclusion

Rendered by a trial court, the judgment does not definitively settle the legal status of digital assets in India. Nevertheless, it reflects judicial willingness to adapt traditional property and succession principles to contemporary digital realities and may hold persuasive value in future disputes involving online accounts, cloud-stored data, virtual digital assets and other forms of digital property.

The case also highlights the need for a dedicated legislative framework addressing digital assets, the rights of heirs, the obligations of technology platforms and the treatment of personal data after death. Notably, the petitioners referred to the Proposed IT (Amendment) Bill, 20255 which seeks to introduce concepts such as: "digital assets"; "digital asset will"; "digital executor"; and mechanisms for management of digital assets after death. However, this is only a private members' bill. India continues to lack a dedicated statutory framework governing digital inheritance. Until such a framework emerges, courts are likely to play a significant role in shaping the law in this area.