In today’s digitally connected world, life is increasingly lived online. From photographs and personal messages to cryptocurrencies and cloud storage, everything constitutes “digital assets.” These assets raise complex legal questions about who gains access to them after a person’s death.

 

The issue gained renewed attention following a Gandhinagar Civil Court ruling that held digital data stored in a deceased person’s Apple iCloud account constitutes a valuable digital asset and therefore forms part of the estate.

 

The Gandhinagar Case: What was the ruling?

 

The case arose after Shaishav Dineshbhai Shah from Gandhinagar died intestate (without leaving a will) in 2025, leaving behind his wife and daughter as his only Class-I legal heirs. While the family inherited his physical belongings, they faced a legal hurdle when attempting to access his “digital estate”, which included an iPhone 13 Pro Max and an associated Apple iCloud account.

 
 

The daughter approached the court seeking “Letters of Administration” to access the digital assets, arguing the account contained years of photographs, videos and voice notes of sentimental value. Apple, however, maintained that access could only be granted through a formal court order appointing a legal administrator.

 

In a significant ruling, Additional Senior Civil Judge Himanshu Choudhary allowed the plea, appointing the daughter as the administrator of the estate and directing Apple to assist in data recovery “to the extent technically feasible”. The court observed that digital data stored in the iCloud account forms part of the deceased’s estate and is therefore capable of administration under succession law.

 

‘Right to privacy ends with a person’s death’

 

Since digital accounts may contain sensitive information that a deceased person may not have intended to share even with immediate family members, treating such accounts as inheritable property can conflict with notions of personal privacy. This issue raises broader ethical questions about whether privacy continues after death.

 

The court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right, but it is inherently personal and extinguishes with the individual. Citing the legal maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona (a personal right of action dies with the person), the court ruled that no privacy claim can survive death to block lawful heirs from accessing digital assets for estate administration, reported the Indian Express. 

 

India’s legal gap in digital inheritance

 

India currently lacks a comprehensive statutory framework governing digital inheritance, which creates legal ambiguity in such cases.

 

The Indian Succession Act, 1925 deals with movable and immovable property but does not explicitly recognise digital assets. The Information Technology Act, 2000 focuses on cybercrime and unauthorised access rather than inheritance rights.

 

The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, offers the closest relevant provision. Section 14, titled “Right to Nominate,” permits a ‘data principal’ to nominate another person to exercise their data rights in the event of death or incapacity. However, this provision concerns data protection rights rather than the inheritance or transfer of ownership of digital assets.

 

Faced with these gaps, the court in the Gandhinagar case drew on broader legal instruments such as General Clauses Act, 1897 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, noting that the definition of property is broad enough to include digital assets. It also referred to tax provisions that already classify cryptocurrencies and NFTs as virtual digital assets under Section 2(47A) of the Income Tax Act, suggesting that Indian law has begun recognising digital property in practice.

 

Related judicial and legislative developments

 

In a similar development, last year the Madras High Court in Rhutikumari v. Zanmai Labs Pvt. Ltd. held that cryptocurrency can be treated as property capable of possession and enjoyment.

 

Separately, a Bill pending in Parliament proposes amendments to the Information Technology Act, 2000 to formally define digital assets and introduce concepts such as “digital asset will”, “digital executor”, and structured posthumous management of digital estates, signalling legislative intent to address the regulatory gap.

 

How other countries handle digital inheritance

 

Different jurisdictions have taken varied approaches to digital inheritance.

 

Germany has one of the strongest legal positions; its Federal Court ruled in 2018 that digital accounts should be treated like physical property and inherited accordingly, even in cases involving encrypted communication platforms.

 

Several states in the United States follow the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA), which allows access to digital assets if the deceased provided consent through a will or platform settings.

 

France permits users to leave legally binding instructions on whether digital data should be deleted, transferred or preserved after death. In the absence of such instructions, heirs may access limited data for estate settlement.

 

The United Kingdom largely depends on traditional succession laws and platform-specific terms of service, without standalone legislation governing digital inheritance.

 

What the tech giants allow

 

Tech giants have introduced their own frameworks to manage post-death account access.

 

Apple offers a “Legacy Contact” feature that allows users to nominate individuals who can access selected iCloud data after death using an access key and death certificate. Without nomination, access requires legal documentation such as court orders. Certain data, including passwords and licensed media, remains inaccessible.

 

Google provides an “Inactive Account Manager”, enabling users to decide what happens to their account after inactivity, including sharing data with up to 10 trusted contacts or deleting the account entirely. Some data categories, however, cannot be shared.

 

Meta allows accounts on Facebook and Instagram to be memorialised. A “legacy contact” can manage limited profile functions such as pinned posts, but cannot access private messages or log in. Families can also request account deletion with proof of death.