The Supreme Court on Friday (July 31) urged the Union Government and the Law Commission of India to consider framing a legal framework to regulate the functioning of private detective agencies, observing that the absence of statutory safeguards raises concerns over privacy violations and misuse of investigative powers.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi said there is an urgent need for a mechanism that lays down professional standards for private investigators while also providing remedies for individuals whose rights may be infringed.

“Checks and measures are perhaps required, drawn from the areas of the law, law enforcement, privacy experts, etc., that can deal with issues arising out of such endeavours, including acting as a grievance redressal forum for any individual who may be aggrieved by the actions of the private investigator having overstepped professional bounds and gone into violating the rights of the individual… the need to develop our mechanism for dealing with these scenarios cannot be underscored enough. The legislature would obviously need to undertake its own examination of all relevant issues and frame rules/regulations in accordance with the prevalent norms and conditions, but can also make reference to other jurisdictions where laws of similar nature exist, for example, the State of Queensland in Australia, the Province of Ontario and Canada, the Netherlands, Singapore, etc.”, observed the Court.

The Court made these observations while deciding a matrimonial dispute, in which the husband had produced certain photographs and videos of the wife allegedly showing her adulterous relationship.The Court inferred that these photos must have been procured through a private detective. The Court then pondered on whether there was any law to regulate them, and to determine the admissibility of such evidence.

The Bench noted that although the Private Detective Agencies (Regulation) Bill, 2007 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha, it was never enacted into law.

It also referred to the three-judge Bench decision in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Meghalaya (2000) 8 SCC 323, which held that investigations conducted by private detective agencies are not recognised as investigations under law. Consequently, evidence gathered by such agencies cannot be relied upon by the prosecution, though it may be produced by the defence.

"The Code does not recognise private investigating agency. If any person is interested in hiring any such private agency, he may do so at his own risk and cost, but such investigation would not be regarded as investigation made under law. Any evidence collected in such private investigation and any conclusion reached by such investigators cannot be presented by Public Prosecutor in any trial. Of course it may be possible for the defence to present such evidence," the Court quoted from Navinchandra N. Majithia.

The aforesaid observation came while hearing an appeal filed by a husband who was aggrieved by the dismissal of his application under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. at the threshold. The husband had opposed his wife's claim for interim maintenance by producing photographs and videos, procured through a private detective agency, to establish her alleged adulterous relationship.

While the Court allowed the husband's appeal, holding that an interim maintenance can be denied to the wife once ex facie evidence of her adulterous conduct is established, it also underscored the need to regulate the operation of the private detective agencies, given the absence of a law thereof.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court directed a serving of a copy of this judgment to the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, and also the Chairman, Law Commission of India to take a view, as may be appropriate in the matter.

Also From Judgment: S. 125 CrPC | Wife Can Be Denied Interim Maintenance If Husband Ex Facie Shows Her Adulterous Relationship : Supreme Court

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 125(1) & Section 125(4) — Interim Maintenance — Adultery as a Defense — Adjudication of Application under Section 125(4) as an Interlocutory Stage - Section 125(4) CrPC — Pendency of Section 125(4) application per se does not bar interim maintenance — Ground of adultery raised under Section 125(4) must be decided after interim maintenance order and before final adjudication — Deferring adjudication of adultery to final disposal is unsustainable - Section 125 is oriented towards social justice, secular in character, and summary in nature to prevent vagrancy and destitution - An application for maintenance is stage one of the proceedings, wherein interim maintenance may be awarded under the second proviso to Section 125(1) - An application filed under Section 125(4) constitutes stage two, and its decision determines whether the case reaches final maintenance under Section 125(1) - If a husband files an application under Section 125(4) alleging adultery, the Court cannot defer its determination to the stage of final adjudication - Adultery, if proved, disentitles the wife to maintenance; hence, the Section 125(4) application must be decided in the interregnum after the order granting interim maintenance and before the final adjudication of the main maintenance petition - If the evidence presented along with the Section 125(4) application ex-facie/on first blush establishes adultery or if the fact is admitted, interim maintenance becomes a non-starter or will be stopped, and the main application will be dismissed - Where the evidence requires proof in accordance with law, interim maintenance will continue during the intervening period while the Court undertakes a review of the evidence to conclusively decide the Section 125(4) application. [Paras 15 - 20]

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 65B (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) — Electronic Records — Admissibility & Regulation of Private Investigators - Electronic Evidence & Private Investigators — Admissibility subject to Section 65B mandatory certification — Lack of legislative regulatory framework for Private Detective Agencies highlighted - Photographs, audio, or video evidence (including those procured via private investigators) are electronic records - Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872, mandatory certification is a condition precedent to admissibility - Oral evidence cannot substitute this statutory requirement Admissibility requires relevance to the matter in issue, identification of voice/source, and proof of accuracy by ruling out tampering or morphing - The Code of Criminal Procedure does not recognize private investigating agencies. Concerns regarding individual privacy, data protection, authenticity/morphing of evidence, and lack of regulation/grievance redressal mechanisms for private detectives were raised - The Supreme Court directed copies of the judgment to be forwarded to the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, and the Chairman, Law Commission of India, to consider framing appropriate rules/regulations. [Relied on Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Meghalaya, (2000) 8 SCC 323; R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 471; Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1; Paras 21 24]

Cause Title: HIMANSHU CHORDIA VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 748

Click here to download judgment