In a significant judgment with far-reaching implications for matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court of India today set aside a Punjab & Haryana High Court ruling that had barred the use of secretly recorded telephone conversations between spouses as evidence in family court proceedings. The apex court held that such recordings do not constitute a breach of the fundamental right to privacy when presented in a suit between the married couple themselves.
The landmark decision restores a Family Court’s order that had initially allowed the recorded conversations to be admitted as evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to a fair trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, empowers a spouse to produce all relevant evidence to substantiate their claims.
This ruling provides crucial clarity on the contentious issue of admissibility of electronic evidence obtained without consent in the context of marital discord, balancing the right to privacy against the imperatives of a fair judicial process.
Background of the Case: A Legal Tug-of-War
The case originated in a Family Court where one spouse, in a bid to prove cruelty, submitted recorded telephone conversations with the other spouse as evidence. The Family Court, taking a lenient view on the strict rules of evidence as often practiced in such courts to ensure substantial justice, allowed the recordings to be admitted.
However, the other spouse challenged this order in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, arguing that the secret recording of their conversations was a violation of their fundamental right to privacy. The High Court concurred with this view, ruling that surreptitiously recording a spouse’s conversations was a “clear breach of privacy” and, therefore, inadmissible as evidence. The High Court’s decision was seen as a strong affirmation of privacy rights within a marriage.
Supreme Court’s Verdict: Fair Trial Takes Precedence
A bench of the Supreme Court, in its dispositive judgment today, overturned the High Court’s order. The apex court delved into a nuanced interpretation of both the right to privacy and the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The Court clarified that while the right to privacy is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions, especially in the context of legal proceedings. The bench reasoned that in a matrimonial dispute, where the relationship between the two parties is the subject of the legal scrutiny, communications between them are of paramount relevance.
A key aspect of the Supreme Court’s reasoning revolved around Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act. This section deals with privileged communication between spouses, stating that a married person cannot be compelled to disclose any communication made to them by their spouse during the marriage. However, the provision contains a crucial exception: it does not apply in suits between married persons.
The Supreme Court highlighted this exception, noting that the legislative intent was to allow for the disclosure of such communications in legal disputes between the spouses themselves. The Court opined that if such evidence were to be barred on the grounds of privacy, it would effectively render the exception in Section 122 otiose and could potentially lead to a miscarriage of justice by preventing one party from presenting crucial evidence.
The judgment underscored that the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution necessitates that parties be allowed to produce relevant evidence to support their case. Preventing a spouse from using a recording that could be vital to proving their claims would be a denial of this right.
Case no. – SLP(C) No. 21195/2021
Case Title – Vibhor Garg v. Neha
