Secret recording of conversations of spouses can be used in matrimonial cases: SC
A bench comprising Justice B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside a verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a case. The high court had held that the secret conversations between spouses are protected under Section 122 of the Evidence Act and cannot be used in judicial proceedings.
Setting aside the high court order, the bench restored the trial court order and said recorded conversations can be taken note of during the matrimonial proceedings.
It asked the family court to proceed with the case after taking judicial note of the recorded conversations.
The apex court said the fact that spouses are recording the conversations of each other is a proof in itself that their marriage is not going strong and hence can be used in the judicial proceedings.
Section 122 deals with communication during marriage and says that 'no person who is or has been married, shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married'.
The case stems from a Family Court decision in Bathinda that allowed the husband to rely on a compact disc containing recordings of phone calls with his wife to support claims of cruelty. The wife challenged this in the high court, arguing that the recordings were made without her knowledge or consent and violated her fundamental right to privacy.
The high court accepted the wife's plea and ruled the evidence inadmissible, stating that surreptitious recording amounted to a clear breach of privacy and was legally unjustified.
However, Justice Nagarathna disagreed with this position.
'Some arguments have been made that permitting such evidence would jeopardise domestic harmony and matrimonial relationships as it would encourage snooping on the spouses, therefore infringing the objective of Section 122 of the Evidence Act.
"We don't think such an argument is tenable. If the marriage has reached a stage where spouses are actively snooping on each other, that is in itself a symptom of a broken relationship and denotes a lack of trust between them," she said.
The detailed judgement is awaited.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
13 minutes ago
- United News of India
Omar Abdullah's statehood signature drive sparks Opposition heat in J&K
Srinagar, Aug 15 (UNI) J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah's announcement of a door-to-door signature campaign across the Union Territory for the restoration of J&K's statehood has drawn sharp criticism from opposition parties. Peoples Democratic Party MLA and legislature party leader in J&K Assembly Waheed Parra accused Omar of 'betraying' the people of Jammu and Kashmir by reducing the fight for statehood to 'token gestures' through a signature campaign. 'Omar Abdullah owes an apology not a signature campaign for normalising 5th August. With 50 MLAs behind him, he has reduced the fight for J&K's statehood to token gestures, after seeking votes door-to-door on the promise of restoring pre–5th August status. This is not just retreat, it is betrayal,' Parra said in a post on X. The PDP MLA claimed that the people gave Omar Abdullah a historic mandate to 'fight for Article 370 and statehood, not to stage political theatre.' 'If he has already surrendered, he must admit it and apologise to every citizen of J&K for selling promises he never intended to keep,' Parra said. The Peoples Conference president and MLA Handwara Sajad Lone asked Omar to stop "theatrics and pass an Assembly resolution on statehood." He warned against 'making a mockery' of the 'cause' and urged a dignified, constitutional route. He challenged Omar to 'once and for all' explain his reluctance to have a resolution for statehood passed in the Legislative Assembly — a constitutional body elected through the Election Commission of India. 'Our resolutions are not binding on the Supreme Court, but inherent in them will be constitutional dignity. It will be a constitutional message to the highest court in the country. Political or signature campaigns have no legal or constitutional sanctity. Name one event empirically in India or anywhere in the world where signature campaigns have altered legal interpretations. They are not even admissible,' he asserted. Recalling that 'a signature campaign for independence was carried out by Yasin Malik also — how far did that campaign go,' Lone accused Omar of showing 'disregard, disdain and contempt' for the very Assembly that gave him the CM's position. 'You derive your power, perks and Chief Ministerial position from the Assembly. Why this contempt for the very institution that has made you the CM?' he asked. 'I beg you — please stop this childish and immature attitude. We will support any campaign unconditionally. But please ensure that a resolution from the UT Assembly is also passed and sent to the Supreme Court. We are facing a battle of a lifetime. A door-to-door signature campaign is nothing but theatrics. Tell me, is the Supreme Court answerable to majoritarian assertions or to law? Majoritarianism is something politicians practise. Supreme Court practises law,' Lone cautioned. National Conference president and former Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah said the signature campaign for the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir's statehood will be run vigorously. 'The campaign will be run vigorously,' Farooq told reporters in Srinagar after attending the Independence Day function. UNI MJR PRS
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Federal judge overturns Trump administration's anti-DEI directives, blocking threats to strip funding from schools and universities
The battle over diversity, equity, and inclusion in American classrooms reached a decisive moment on Thursday when a federal judge struck down two Trump administration directives aimed at eradicating such programmes from schools and universities. The ruling dismantles a policy framework that threatened institutions with financial ruin for maintaining equity-based initiatives, and it restores, at least temporarily, the space for educators to address longstanding disparities without fear of federal reprisal. Emerging from a political climate where DEI has become both a rallying cry and a lightning rod, the decision underscores how deeply divided the nation remains on questions of race, representation, and academic freedom. Opponents of the initiatives cast them as reverse discrimination; defenders see them as vital correctives to structural inequities. This judgment does not settle that moral argument, but it imposes a procedural halt on a campaign that had sought to recast civil rights law in ways critics warned would silence lawful and necessary educational practices. A ruling that reverberates across campuses US District Judge Stephanie Gallagher of Maryland ruled that the Education Department acted unlawfully when it threatened to strip federal funding from institutions that maintained DEI efforts. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The contested guidance, delivered through two internal memos, ordered the elimination of all 'race-based decision-making' in admissions, hiring, financial aid, and student life, or risk severe financial penalties. The memos had been on hold since April, after multiple courts blocked portions of the department's anti-DEI campaign. Thursday's decision, prompted by a lawsuit from the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association, sweeps away the guidance entirely. Educators push back against 'censorship' Plaintiffs argued that the directives forced educators into an impossible choice: Censor lawful speech and dismantle inclusive programmes or face the loss of federal funding and possible prosecution. A drastic expansion of Supreme Court ruling The February 14 memo sought to extend the Supreme Court's 2023 ban on affirmative action well beyond its original scope. It declared that any consideration of race in academic policy was a violation of civil rights law. A follow-up in April intensified the pressure, requiring states to certify they were not using 'illegal DEI practices' or face the False Claims Act. Gallagher rejected the government's argument that the memos merely restated existing law, noting instead that they 'initiated a sea change' in oversight and left 'millions of educators' fearing punishment for lawful and even beneficial actions. The procedural faultline Crucially, Gallagher did not weigh in on whether DEI is inherently good or bad. Her ruling focused on the Education Department's failure to meet procedural requirements, ordering the immediate withdrawal of the guidance. The department has not commented on the decision, which for now halts an initiative critics described as government overreach dressed in the language of equality. A deeply polarised battlefield Supporters of the memos claimed DEI discriminates against white and Asian American students, while opponents view it as an essential tool to address entrenched inequities. Thursday's decision keeps the debate alive, and, for now, leaves space for educators to continue equity-driven practices without the shadow of federal retaliation. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Indian Express
31 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Why Supreme Court's order on Bihar SIR is not a ‘rebuke' to Election Commission
'History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes,' Mark Twain once famously said. The Supreme Court's order in Association for Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission of India (2025), in the context of the 'Special Intensive Revision' (SIR) exercise in Bihar, 'rhymes' very much with its landmark judgment in Lal Babu Hussain vs Electoral Registration Officer (1995). On Thursday, the SC directed the ECI to make the draft electoral roll more accessible and searchable, giving excluded voters reasons for their exclusion so that they may challenge it. In Lal Babu Hussain, the Court put paid to the ECI's attempt to declare certain voters 'non-citizens' and directed them to follow a fresh, transparent and fair process with regard to voters it had genuine reasons to believe were not citizens. The parallels between these two cases, nearly 30 years apart, speak of a certain official distrust of India's poorest citizens. Something similar happened in 1994 in Delhi and Mumbai. The ECI instructed Electoral Registration Officers to identify 'non-citizens' and remove them from the electoral list, in coordination with the local police. Notices were issued to nearly three lakh people demanding that they prove their citizenship — only with documentary proof — limiting its possibility to only four documents. Ration cards, perhaps the most widely held proof of identity, were not accepted by the ECI until it was pushed to do so by the Bombay High Court. Those affected in Delhi approached the SC directly. In its 1995 judgment, a three-judge bench of the SC set aside the instructions of the ECI and directed that no one should be required to prove their citizenship unless the ECI had credible material to show that they were not citizens. When such material was found, the ERO was required to conduct a full-scale inquiry, allowing the person in question to provide all possible evidence to show that they were citizens of India. Then, as now, the ECI's move triggered strong political backlash against the ruling party (Congress). The SC's latest order has also pushed the ECI to accept more documents as proof of identity and to also declare why certain voters have been left out of the draft electoral list. The ECI has claimed (without substantiating) that, by and large, voters have been removed from the draft electoral roll as they have either died or migrated. The SC's order will test the truth of the ECI's claims, but the key point is that it took the SC to push the ECI to follow the most basic principles of natural justice. Between the Lal Babu Hussain judgment and the latest order in the SIR case, the relationship between the ECI and the SC has been one of institutional bonhomie. The SC, in its judicial orders, has helped push forward some key ECI proposals for changes in the electoral process relating to the declaration of assets and criminal cases, the disqualification of convicted politicians, and the 'None of the Above' option. The ECI's indifferent stance on electoral bonds, which the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional, was one of the rare instances of relative disagreement between the two institutions. The SC's order in the SIR case is, therefore, no 'rebuke' to the ECI; rather, it is far from it. The SC judges hearing the case, through their oral observations, do not seem convinced that the ECI is acting either unlawfully or in bad faith. Rather, they have tried to nudge the ECI along, pointing to its own commitment to transparency and fairness in the process. Coming along with the earlier order of the SC, which pushed the ECI to accept the Aadhaar card and the EPIC card as valid documents, has meant that the focus of SIR has shifted, subtly, from questions of citizenship to questions of correctness of the rolls. The very first electoral rolls in India were prepared in such a way that even the homeless and the nameless (mostly women who were referred to only as someone's mother or wife) found themselves on the voter rolls. This was done at a time when the Constitution was not even final, and no one knew who was going to be a citizen in the new India. Had that exercise been done with the callousness and cruelty of the SIR, India would never have been the world's largest electoral democracy. The writer is a co-founder of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and an advocate
