Secretly Recorded Telephonic Talk Between Wife & Friend In Breach Of Privacy Right Admissible In Family Court, Says Delhi Court

Court says Privacy judgment silent on the admissibility of evidence recorded n breach of privacyIs the evidence in the form of an audio-video recording of a private telephonic conversation collected in violation of a person’s fundamental right to privacy (after the Supreme Court’s Privacy judgment) by planting a recorder in the bedroom of that person admissible in a Family Court?A Delhi court has answered the question in affirmative.Principal Judge (South), Family Court, Narottam Kaushal held that a Family Court can receive any report, statement, document, information which, in its opinion, will assist it in effectually dealing with a dispute between the parties without going into the question of admissibility of the evidence collected by violating a person’s right to privacy. “This Court is of the opinion that the conversation between the respondent wife and her friend wherein she has allegedly spoken about the petitioner husband and his family and the status of the matrimonial life would certainly assist the court in effectively deciding the dispute between the parties. Such a piece of evidence is certainly relevant. Therefore, in view of section 14 of the Family Courts Act, the evidence cannot be thrown out on the ground that the same is inadmissible,” he held.The judge said so while deciding a plea of a man (the petitioner), who has been seeking a divorce from his wife (the respondent) on grounds of cruelty.To prove cruelty, the petitioner had relied upon an audio-video recording wherein the respondent is purportedly speaking to a friend on phone and is talking about petitioner and his family and the status of matrimonial life, which conversation the petitioner claims to be defamatory and constituting cruelty to him.He had moved the plea for the appointment of an expert to prove the contents of the CD containing the said recorded telephonic conversation to rule out any possibility of tampering while the estranged wife objected to it being admitted as evidence.During the arguments stretching over three weeks, petitioner’s counsel advocate Kadambari Puri submitted that the contents of the CD is the prime evidence which the petitioner wants to rely upon and since the respondent is disputing its contents, the court should appoint an expert to report about the correctness of the contents of the CD.The counsel for the respondent, however, opposed the application saying the CD as an evidence is hit by Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution as the conversation was recorded by planting an audio-video recorder in the bedroom of the respondent for recording her conversation with her friend which was made in private, thereby violating her right to privacy.Relying on the nine-judge bench Supreme Court’s verdict in KS Puttuswamy & Anr. vs. Union of India (better known as the Privacy judgment), the respondent said a communication made between her and her friend with the belief that the same is being made in private cannot be permitted to be brought on record. He argued that the petitioner’s act of secretly recording the conversation is in violation of respondent’s fundamental right to privacy and therefore, such recording is illegal and not admissible in evidence.She further argued that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act permits evidence which is inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act but does not allow evidence which is inadmissible as per the Constitution of India.Advocate Puri strongly rebutted the argument as she submitted that right to privacy is subject to just exceptions and when juxtaposed with the right of the petitioner to establish cruelty in conduct of the respondent, respondent’s right to privacy shall have to give way to petitioner’s right to prove his case.She referred to the Supreme Court case titled Sharda vs. Dharampal wherein it was held that matrimonial court has the power to order a person to undergo a medical test and such an order would not be in violation of personal liberty.Privacy judgment and the admissibility of evidence in breach of privacy“There can be no dispute to the law laid down in KS Puttuswamy’s case. The law as enunciated by a full bench of the Supreme Court is binding and sacrosanct. However, this court is of the opinion that the scope of K S Puttuswamy’s case is restricted to a stage prior to the violation of right to privacy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a person has a right to maintain his privacy. This right has been conferred the status of a fundamental right. The protection has been enunciated to be available against the state, as well as non-state entities.However, the consequences of such violation, on the admissibility/ inadmissibility of the evidence collected by such violation, have not been discussed in the judgment,” said Judge Narottam Kaushal.He went on to say, “Thus, in the present case, the act of petitioner husband of planting an audio-video recorder without the knowledge information of respondent certainly amounts to invasion of respondent’s...

Secretly Recorded Telephonic Talk Between Wife & Friend In Breach Of Privacy Right Admissible In Family Court, Says Delhi Court

akanksha jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Secretly Recorded Telephonic Talk Between Wife & Friend In Breach Of Privacy Right Admissible In Family Court, Says Delhi Court

akanksha jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers