In a significant ruling that addresses privacy rights within matrimonial relationships, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has declared that evidence obtained by breaching a spouse’s privacy is inadmissible in court. Justice G.R. Swaminathan, delivering the judgment on October 30, 2024, underscored the importance of privacy as a fundamental right that extends to spouses, emphasizing that marital relationships do not diminish this constitutional protection.
The court was hearing Civil Revision Petition (CRP)(MD) No. 2362 of 2024, filed by R (the wife) against B (the husband) and the Secretary to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India. The wife challenged the admissibility of call data records that the husband submitted in support of his divorce petition. These records, she argued, were obtained without her consent, in violation of her privacy.
Case Background
The dispute began when B filed for divorce in 2019 in the Subordinate Court of Paramakudi, citing allegations of cruelty, adultery, and desertion. During the proceedings, B submitted his wife’s call records as evidence. R contested the use of these records, filing a petition to exclude them on the grounds that her husband had unlawfully accessed her call data without permission. When the trial court dismissed her plea as premature, R approached the High Court seeking redress.
Justice Swaminathan’s judgment examined whether evidence obtained through privacy violations could be admitted, raising questions about the boundaries of privacy within marriage. Given the complex legal issues, the court appointed Senior Counsel Mr. Srinath Sridevan as amicus curiae, whose contributions were acknowledged in the court’s final order.
Legal Issues
1. Privacy Rights Within Marriage
At the heart of the case was whether privacy rights, affirmed as fundamental in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India, are applicable within marital relationships. Justice Swaminathan explored whether one spouse could intrude on the other’s privacy to gather evidence and concluded that each spouse retains an individual right to privacy.
2. Admissibility of Evidence Acquired by Privacy Breach
Justice Swaminathan examined the legal requirements for submitting electronic evidence under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The husband had presented the call data without the requisite certification from the telecom provider, instead self-certifying the evidence. The court ruled that this certification was inadequate, rendering the evidence inadmissible.
3. The Role of the Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023
Although the 2023 Act was not directly applicable, Justice Swaminathan referred to its stricter standards for electronic evidence. The BSA mandates that any electronic evidence must be certified by an expert designated under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The judge noted the absence of such designated experts in Tamil Nadu, underscoring the need for government action to appoint them.
Court’s Observations and Verdict
Justice Swaminathan made pointed observations on the importance of privacy and mutual respect in marriage, stating, “Trust forms the bedrock of matrimonial relationships. The violation of a spouse’s privacy erodes this trust.” The judgment highlighted that privacy does not end at marriage, remarking that “privacy as a fundamental right includes spousal privacy also, and evidence obtained by invading this right is inadmissible.”
The court addressed the argument that the Family Courts Act, 1984 allows the admission of any material necessary for resolving matrimonial disputes, noting that this power cannot override constitutional rights. Justice Swaminathan held that permitting privacy intrusions would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging unauthorized surveillance within families.
