LI Network
Published on: October 14, 2023 at 22:00 IST
The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a recent ruling, affirmed that recording phone conversations without the knowledge and consent of individuals constitutes a violation of their right to privacy, as protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
This assertion was made while overturning a family court’s decision to admit phone conversations between a husband and wife as evidence in a maintenance case.
Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey emphasized that when a husband records his wife’s conversations without her consent or awareness, it infringes upon her privacy rights.
The court’s order from October 5 stated, “It appears that the respondent has recorded the conversation of the petitioner (wife) without her knowledge behind her back, which amounts to a violation of her right to privacy and also the right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The case originated from a plea filed by the wife seeking maintenance before a family court. During these proceedings, the husband applied under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to present mobile phone conversations with his wife, which he had recorded. He intended to cross-examine his wife based on these conversations in the family court.
The family court accepted the husband’s application, prompting the wife to appeal to the High Court to challenge the decision. Her argument revolved around the breach of her right to privacy, contending that these phone conversations were inadmissible as evidence because they were recorded without her knowledge.
In response, the husband’s counsel argued that he needed to present specific evidence to substantiate his claims against the wife and had the right to confront her with this evidence.
However, the Chhattisgarh High Court found the husband’s stance unconvincing. The court stated that the right to privacy is a fundamental component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the family court’s decision to allow the application under Section 311 of the CrPC, along with the certificate issued under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, was legally incorrect. As a result, the court set aside the family court’s order.
The High Court also cited several judgments on related issues, including the Supreme Court’s decision in PUCL v. Union of India (the phone tapping case), which emphasized the importance of telephone conversations as part of an individual’s private life and the need for privacy protection. The High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the wife, overturning the family court’s order.
Also Read: Illegally Recorded Phone Calls and Their Admissibility as Evidence