&w=3840&q=100)
Wife's WhatsApp chats can be used as evidence in divorce: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a woman's private WhatsApp chats, accessed without her consent, can still be admissible as evidence in divorce proceedings under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, LiveLaw reported.
The court emphasised that while the right to privacy is enshrined as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, it is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions—particularly when it clashes with another constitutional guarantee: the right to a fair trial.
What is the case?
The case involved a couple from Gwalior who got married on December 1, 2016. They had a daughter the following year. But the relationship soon soured. In 2018, the husband moved court, seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He alleged cruelty and adultery, backing his claims with WhatsApp chats retrieved from his wife's phone via an app he had installed without her knowledge.
These chats, he claimed, proved that she was involved in an extramarital affair. The family court in Gwalior allowed the chats to be admitted as evidence in April 2024.
Meanwhile, the wife challenged this order in the high court, arguing that her fundamental right to privacy had been breached and that the chats were gathered illegally, violating Sections 43, 66, and 72 of the Information Technology Act.
Her counsel argued that the husband's act of installing spyware on her phone was unlawful and that evidence collected through such methods should be deemed inadmissible.
The high court, however, disagreed.
What did the court say?
While recognising the wife's right to privacy, the bench stated that in matters of legal dispute, the right to a fair trial holds equal—if not greater—weight. The court leaned on important Supreme Court verdicts, including Sharda v Dharmpal and Justice KS Puttaswamy v Union of India, to make its point.
'It is a settled concept of fair trial that a litigating party gets a fair chance to bring relevant evidence before the court… the right to privacy may have to yield to the right to fair trial,' the court said in its judgement.
The bench explained that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act was purposefully created to allow more flexibility in admitting evidence in family-related disputes, even if such evidence would not be admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The court clarified that merely admitting such material as evidence does not imply that its content is accepted as true. That responsibility lies with the family court, which must examine the authenticity, relevance, and credibility of the chats.
'Merely admitting evidence on record is not proof of a fact-in-issue,' the high court said. 'The family court is free to either accept, discard, or assign weight to any piece of evidence during the adjudication process.'
The bench further said that allowing such chats to be presented in court does not absolve the person who obtained them of legal liability. 'Such evidence must be received and treated with caution and circumspection, and the possibility of tampering must be ruled out,' it added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Cash-at-home case: SC panel proposes impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma - What probe report said
Yashwant Varma (File photo) High court judge Yashwant Varma and his family members had 'covert or active control' over the store room where a large stack of half-burnt cash was discovered, a finding that amounts to serious misconduct and justifies his removal from office, reported news agency PTI citing the inquiry panel's report into the incident. The three-judge inquiry committee, headed by Punjab and Haryana high court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, conducted the probe over ten days. The panel examined 55 witnesses and visited the site of the accidental fire, which broke out around 11.35 pm on March 14 at the official residence of Justice Varma, then serving in the Delhi high court and now a judge of the Allahabad high court. Based on the panel's findings, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, recommending Justice Varma's impeachment. 'This committee thus holds that the cash/money was found in the store room of 30 Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi officially occupied by Justice Varma. More so, the access to the store room has been found to be within the covert or active control of Justice Varma and his family members and that by way of strong inferential evidence, it is established that the burnt cash/money was got removed from the store room during the wee hours of 15.3.2025 from 30 Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi,' the panel noted in its detailed 64-page report. The report further stated, 'Keeping in view the direct and electronic evidence on record, this Committee is firmly of the view that there is sufficient substance in the allegations raised in the letter of the Chief Justice of India dated March 22, and the misconduct found proved is serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal of Justice Varma...' The committee meticulously examined the testimonies of all 55 witnesses, including Justice Varma himself, following the procedure outlined by the in-house inquiry mechanism. Citing the "Restatement of Values of Judicial Life" adopted by the Supreme Court in its full court meeting in 1997, the panel concluded, 'It is obvious that all the virtues expected from a Judge are founded upon the concept of probity.' It observed that the standard of probity for judges is significantly higher than that expected of holders of civil posts. This expectation, the panel said, becomes 'predominant, relevant and indispensable' when concerning judges in the higher judiciary. 'The expectation of the general public from a member of the superior judiciary is extremely high. Probity is the most important and indispensable attribute of a person holding judicial office and is rather the basic eligibility criteria. Least that is expected of any judicial officer of district or higher judiciary is unimpeachable character and conduct in and outside the courtroom,' the report underlined. The panel pointed out that the legitimacy of the judicial office rests on public trust, and the degree of this trust is directly tied to the behaviour and conduct of the judge, both within and beyond the courtroom. 'Any deficiency in this regard erodes public trust, which ought to be viewed stringently,' the panel said as it recommended the initiation of impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma. Besides Chief Justice Nagu, the inquiry committee included Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia of the Himachal Pradesh high court and Justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka high court. The panel, which was set up by former CJI Khanna on March 22, had investigated the fire that erupted late at night on March 14 at Justice Varma's official residence at 30 Tughlak Crescent in New Delhi. What initially appeared to be a routine fire incident escalated into grave allegations of judicial misconduct and breach of public trust. Several eyewitnesses, including police officers and firefighters, informed the panel that they saw charred bundles of Rs 500 notes scattered on the premises. One eyewitness recounted being 'shocked' at the sight, stating, 'There was a large pile of cash… I saw it for the first time in my life.' The inquiry was structured around three key issues, all of which were examined in depth. The first question posed by the panel was, 'How does Justice Varma account for the presence of money/cash in the room (store room) located in his premises 30 Tughlak Crescent...?' Justice Varma was asked to clarify the origin of the money discovered at the scene. Another critical issue was, 'Who is the person who had removed the burnt money/cash from the store room in the morning of March, 15.' The panel expressed reservations about the testimony provided by Justice Varma's daughter, who was present at the residence on the night of the incident. 'From the demeanor of the witness, we noticed that she is a confident young woman, having been subjected to hostel life throughout her education apart from being an independent working woman. This belies her statement that she was totally overwhelmed and panicked by the incidents of the fateful night...,' the panel remarked. The committee also extensively analysed and rejected Justice Varma's defence, in which he claimed that the entrance to the store room was under constant CCTV surveillance and managed by security personnel, making it highly unlikely for cash to have been stored there.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Supreme Court Orders Transfer Of Kidnapping Case Against Tamil Nadu Senior Cop
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday while hearing suspended ADGP HM Jayaram directed the Tamil Nadu government to transfer the investigation of the teenager's abduction case to CB-CID. The Supreme Court while setting aside the arrest order of the Madras High Court also directed the Chief Justice of the high court to transfer the case to some other bench. However, the suspension of the officer will continue as the Tamil Nadu government told the Supreme Court that his suspension did not come from the high court order, but from rules. Senior lawyer Siddharth Dave appearing for Tamil Nadu told the Supreme Court that he was not suspended because of the orders of the high court, but under Rule 3 of the All India Service Rules, 1969. This rule empowers a disciplinary authority to suspend a member of service in respect of whom or against whom an investigation, inquiry or trial is pending. The senior lawyer said that presently the investigation is underway and depending on the report of the investigating officer, a decision will be taken on the suspension order. The Supreme Court, taking this submission on record, said the suspended ADGP would have options to appeal against the suspension. The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by the suspended Assistant Director General of Police HM Jayaram, challenging his arrest in a kidnapping case. The Madras High Court ordered the arrest of Mr Jayaram and criticised Kilvaithinankuppam (SC) MLA 'Poovai' M Jagan Moorthy for "misusing his political power" in connection with the kidnapping of a teenager. The officer approached the Supreme Court saying his arrest order was passed when he was not even a party to the proceedings in the high court. In the last hearing, the Supreme Court expressed shock over the high court order and sought the Tamil Nadu government's reply in withdrawal of suspension. The matter pertains to a May 10 kidnapping of an 18-year-old man in Thiruvallur district. He was reportedly kidnapped by a group seeking information about his elder brother, who had married a woman from Theni district against her family's wishes. The Madras High Court castigated the MLA and the senior police officer for using political muscle to block a lawful investigation. The case has been filed by the mother of the kidnapped man against the group of men who allegedly entered their house in Kalambakkam, searching for her elder son. They allegedly kidnapped the younger son when his elder brother was nowhere to be found. The kidnappers allegedly posed as police officers and later dropped the man near a hotel in a vehicle belonging to Mr Jayaram, the woman said in her complaint.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
How the world's top ad agencies aligned to fix prices in India
HighlightsOmnicom Media's India Chief, Kartik Sharma, expressed frustration over a rival's attempt to poach their client by offering lower prices, which violated a collective agreement among global advertising agencies on ad rates in India. The Competition Commission of India is investigating a suspected cartel among major advertising firms, including WPP Media, Omnicom Media, and Interpublic Group Mediabrands, for coordinating pricing and denying business to non-compliant agencies. A WhatsApp group named 'AAAI media agencies' included top executives from various advertising companies coordinating their pitches and pricing strategies, which led to concerns about antitrust violations in India's media sector. Omnicom Media 's India chief was frustrated. It was October 5, 2023 and a rival was trying to poach the U.S. firm's client by offering lower prices, just weeks after global advertising agencies and broadcasters struck secret pacts on ad rates in the South Asian country. The attempt to woo the client violated the agencies' agreement, Omnicom Media's India CEO Kartik Sharma wrote in a WhatsApp group comprising a who's who of advertising, according to excerpts of the discussion documented by antitrust investigators and verified by Reuters. "This kind of practice is not in the spirit of what we are collectively trying to achieve," Sharma wrote, without identifying the parties. Shashi Sinha, then India CEO of New York-based IPG Mediabrands, suggested an industry group should "admonish the agency". The exchanges form part of a confidential dossier compiled by India's antitrust watchdog that chronicles how global advertising companies, including leading U.S. and European firms, coordinated to rig prices in the world's most populous nation. Reuters reviewed evidence from the Competition Commission of India (CCI) investigation, including a 10-page document with messages and records of meetings between top advertising executives, and two industry agreements under scrutiny for antitrust violations; and interviewed two people familiar with the probe. The key details, which haven't been previously reported, centre on WhatsApp interactions involving 11 industry executives. They include the top India or South Asia executives of WPP's GroupM; U.S.-based Omnicom Media and Interpublic's IPG Mediabrands; France's Publicis and Havas Media; Japan's Dentsu and India's Madison World. Over WhatsApp and in meetings, the executives coordinated responses to clients, which "resulted in alignment of competing advertising agencies," CCI officials said in the August 9 dossier, determining on an initial basis that the conduct contravened competition law. The firms agreed to cooperate on pricing, including not to undercut each other; colluded with broadcasters to deny business to agencies that didn't comply; and discussed financial terms involving at least four Indian clients over conference calls, according to the investigation documents. The documents don't indicate whether the agencies' foreign headquarters were aware of the executives' actions. A spokesperson for WPP Media , which until May was known as GroupM, told Reuters it was aware of the investigation but declined to comment further. A Dentsu India spokesperson confirmed Reuters reporting that it had disclosed industry practices to the CCI in February 2024 under the regulator's leniency program, which enables lesser penalties for firms that share evidence of malpractice. The spokesperson didn't address specific evidence raised in the dossier but said the firm had implemented stricter audits and controls. The other agencies and their executives didn't respond to Reuters questions about the antitrust probe and information in the dossier. The regulator also didn't respond to queries. Reuters has reported that in March, as part of the continuing investigation, the regulator raided the Indian offices of many advertising firms and an industry group that represents broadcasters, including the Reliance-Disney venture and Sony . CCI investigations typically take several months. The regulator can't press criminal charges, but can impose financial penalties on the media agencies of up to three times their profit or 10% of an Indian entity's global turnover, whichever is higher, for each year of wrongdoing. Secret Pacts WPP Media, the world's largest media buying agency, last year - when it was still known as GroupM - won new India business worth $447 million, followed by Omnicom's $183 million, according to research firm COMvergence. But India's near-$30 billion media and entertainment sector is grappling with weak consumer sentiment. Ad spending will rise 7% to $19 billion in 2025, the slowest growth in three years, according to GroupM estimates. The CCI is investigating the role of two industry bodies, the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI) and the Indian Broadcasting & Digital Foundation (IBDF), in orchestrating the suspected cartel. The former group is led by WPP Media India head Prasanth Kumar, while the broadcasting body's president is Kevin Vaz, a top Reliance-Disney venture executive. Neither industry group responded to requests for comment. The dossier shows the AAAI circulated guidelines to ad agencies in August 2023: They must charge clients whose annual spending exceeds $29 million a minimum 3% commission for digital ads and 2.5% for traditional media. Lower-spending clients would pay higher minimum commissions of up to 8%. A month later, the industry associations entered a joint pact, agreeing no agency would "unilaterally offer any discount" on rates while pitching for business. The pact, reviewed by Reuters, declared its aim was to eliminate "lower pricing as a reason to award a pitch". The advertising firms began coordinating their activities at least as early as August 2023, according to the CCI documents. Ad executives who met on December 1 that year hailed their collaboration as a "great success" and resolved to continue, according to meeting minutes cited in the CCI's evidence. 'All Aligned' In the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission this month sought information from advertising agencies as part of a probe into whether they coordinated boycotts of certain sites. The Justice Department in 2016 probed agencies it suspected of rigging bids to favour in-house units, but eventually closed the case without bringing charges. Brewer Anheuser-Busch InBev used CCI's leniency program to blow the whistle on an industry cartel in India in 2017. In the case of the ad industry, Dentsu India told Reuters it filed its leniency application with the CCI not as a reaction to external pressure but out of a decision to "support reform from within". Two people with knowledge of the matter told Reuters the evidence Dentsu submitted included a transcript of the WhatsApp group. The group, formed in August 2023 and reviewed in part by Reuters, was named "AAAI media agencies" and contained scores of chat messages. Participants included Kumar of WPP's media company, Sharma of Omnicom Media, IPG Mediabrands' Sinha, Havas Media India CEO Mohit Joshi, Dentsu South Asia CEO Harsha Razdan and then-media business CEO Anita Kotwani, Publicis South Asia chief Anupriya Acharya and Madison boss Sam Balsara, the investigators' evidence shows. Members of the group discussed advertising pitches and coordinated on interactions with clients such as food delivery giant Swiggy , drug maker Cipla, SoftBank-backed e-commerce firm Meesho, and Kshema Insurance. In Swiggy's case, the AAAI arranged a Zoom call with media agency heads to discuss the company's advertising pitch. Later, GroupM's Kumar, as AAAI president, suggested an email response to Swiggy explaining the industry's agreed position on rebates. "Ok all aligned thanks," he wrote after a consensus emerged. Kshema told Reuters the insurer was unaware of the matter. The other clients didn't respond to questions. During another discussion on client rebates, an unspecified Dentsu executive told rivals over WhatsApp that "the lowest we go to is retain 30% and 70% we pass back to the client," according to the CCI dossier. CCI officials noted in the document that advertisers and the broadcasters' group had sought to penalise enterprises that didn't comply with the pricing pacts. In an email to Walt Disney in August 2023, Kumar wrote that broadcasters should refrain from granting business to a firm that had breached the pacts, ITW Consulting, though he said it had later agreed not to approach clients directly. ITW didn't respond to Reuters questions. Tensions heated up again over WhatsApp three months later. Sharma, of Omnicom Media, learned that ITW had done another "direct deal with a client of ours" for advertising on streaming platform Hotstar, which was run by Disney. This irked Sharma, as Hotstar had the rights for the cricket World Cup held in India at the time. "This nuisance has to stop," he wrote in the group.
