Latest news with #EvidenceAct
The Hill
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
America's public data needs rescuing from Trump
America's public data is part of our country's critical infrastructure, every bit as important as our highways, bridges, railways, and dams. Roughly 300,000 public federal datasets, including GPS, weather, Census, and economic data, are an essential resource for policymakers, companies, state and local governments, and ordinary Americans. Now the Trump administration is disrupting our data infrastructure in unprecedented ways. Data experts across the country are alarmed by these changes, but they're also seeing the opportunity for positive change. The months ahead will determine whether we end up with an unreliable, inaccurate and deeply flawed data ecosystem, or a new infrastructure that is better and stronger than what we had before. The administration began making changes to America's data systems within a month of the inauguration. It began by deleting government websites and datasets, which an ad hoc army of 'data rescuers' scrambled to save. In the last five months, the changes to data infrastructure have gone deeper. The administration has cut staffing and funding for data-providing agencies, altered or dropped specific surveys and data collections, disbanded advisory committees for the Census Bureau and other agencies that collect data, laid the groundwork for major changes to long-established data programs and removed data relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. On July 3, The Lancet published research finding that 114 of 232 federal public health datasets studied, or 49 percent, 'were substantially altered,' primarily in how they referred to gender and sex. My nonprofit organization has just published a white paper on the current challenges and opportunities for America's data infrastructure. Drawing on more than 200 sources and numerous discussions with data experts, we found a growing movement to reinvent America's data infrastructure, not just preserve it. Advocates are simultaneously trying to rescue datasets and data programs while also envisioning something greater: a national data ecosystem that is more accessible, accurate, complete and secure. Here are some of the best emerging opportunities to shape America's data future. Working with Congress. The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act (the Evidence Act), which President Trump signed into law in 2019, embodied a strong bipartisan commitment to public data for public use. In May, Rep. William Timmons (R-S.C.) introduced a bipartisan resolution to convene a new Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking like the one that shaped the Evidence Act. There is an opportunity to build on the Evidence Act by strengthening the processes required to alter major data collections, writing more precise specifications for the most high-value data programs, creating clear guidelines for making government data AI-ready and more. Reinventing federal data governance. The president's budget for 2026 recommends consolidating three statistical agencies: Census, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Many statisticians support this proposal and see it as an opportunity to make further, long-needed changes. The American Statistical Association has launched a project on Modernizing the Federal Statistical System with recommendations to come by the end of the year. Other expert groups could explore additional opportunities for structural reform. Working with the states. States already collect data for national statistics on health, education and more, but variations in methods and data quality can make that data hard to use. Ongoing efforts to standardize state data could make it more reliable and leave the country less dependent on federal data collections. Forming new collaborations. People and organizations that care about America's data are working together in new ways. For example, the Population Reference Bureau has launched a Federal Data Forum to promote information sharing and collaboration. Several foundation collaboratives are supporting projects to improve national data sources, both across the board and in sectors including science and health. We have launched a U.S. Data Action Hub, with about 70 resources so far, to track the growing number of organizations and initiatives working to protect America's data. Reinventing data advocacy. Advocates are realizing that they have to make a stronger case for public support to preserve, fund and improve vital data sources. America's Essential Data is compiling examples of data used by police officers, students, ranchers and business owners, among others. The Census Project has stepped up its advocacy for the American Community Survey, an indispensable resource for businesses and entrepreneurs as well as state, local and tribal governments. Other groups are advocating for funding to support labor statistics and health statistics. Efforts like these are creating new coalitions that can protect our current data infrastructure, push for future improvements and provide evidence for lawsuits to protect essential data, like the recently successful lawsuits brought by physicians and organic farmers. Developing new data sources. Data scientists are exploring alternatives to the federal data that's now at risk. They're looking for new ways to analyze national and state administrative data, which tracks government transactions and records, to gain new insights into the population. Crowdsourcing and citizen science projects can engage the public in creating new data sources. And AI has opened new opportunities to create structured, usable data based on internet searches, mobile applications and social media. America's data systems are facing a crisis, but like any crisis, this one can open up new possibilities. Federal data serves a huge constituency that ultimately includes every American. By thinking creatively and working together, we can preserve the country's most important data resources, improve what needs to be made better and ultimately create the robust, reliable data ecosystem America deserves.
Indian Express
6 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Why the SC has made secretly recorded conversations between spouses in court
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that secretly recorded conversations between spouses are admissible evidence in matrimonial disputes, including divorce proceedings. It set aside a 2021 Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which had barred a husband, who sought a divorce, from using secretly recorded phone conversations with his wife as evidence in court. The apex court's ruling changes the contours of spousal or marital privilege in Indian law, which protects private conversations between a husband and a wife during their marriage, and even after the marriage has ended. Spousal privilege means that a person cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse in a criminal case. It is rooted in the idea that a degree of protection has to be provided to private conversations between a husband and a wife during their marriage. In India, Section 122 of the Evidence Act codifies this. It states: '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; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative-in-interest, consents, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other.' Spousal communication is allowed as evidence, according to the law, when the other spouse consents or when one spouse has narrated the events to a third party who testifies in a court. Otherwise, even if a spouse accidentally spills the beans, it is struck off the record as inadmissible evidence that the court cannot rely upon. Spousal privilege does not apply directly in divorce cases where one spouse makes allegations against the other spouse and testifies in a court of law. These allegations are supplemented by evidence such as letters, photographs or testimonies of other people. However, with technological advances, text messages, video and voice recordings, emails are often presented as evidence. Many High Courts have refrained from accepting secret recordings as evidence due to two main reasons: The SC's ruling relied on its 1973 judgment in a case, which pertained to a telephonic conversation recorded by the police to prove a bribery charge against a doctor. At the time, the apex court overlooked how the evidence was obtained, given that the case involved corruption by a public servant and the phone tap was by the state. The SC has now effectively extended this reasoning to matrimonial cases. The court has said that if evidence is relevant, independently verifiable, and falls within statutory exceptions, it can be admitted even if collected in secret. It has also been said that secret recordings are a violation of fundamental rights, but the right to privacy has to be balanced with the right to a fair trial. The SC has interpreted Section 122 to mean that while an individual cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse, it is not impermissible to allow evidence to that effect, especially in matrimonial disputes. The ruling says a telephone that secretly records conversations is 'no different from an eavesdropper.' Simply put, the court here is equating digital evidence to a third party who is a witness to a privileged conversation and is testifying. The SC recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right in 2017. The current ruling is an example of how the court operationalises this right to privacy. The court, in its interpretation of Section 122, said that the provision was drafted into 'sanctity of the marriage' and not to protect privacy within marriage. This is perhaps true for a law of the Victorian era — the Evidence Act came into force in 1872. But privacy as a is now a fundamental right, which protects the inner sphere of the individual from interference from both state and non-state actors. Any infringement of the right to privacy has to be backed by a valid law. The SC also disagreed with the argument that making secret recordings admissible in court would lead to surveillance within marriage. It said, '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.' There is also a concern that the ruling could affect women's right to a fair trial, as there is a huge gender gap in smartphone ownership and access to technology in India. There is a 39% divide in ownership of smartphones by women compared to men in the country, according to the Mobile Gender Gap Report 2025. When evidence can be collected at the click of a button, the party with easier access to such technology naturally gets the upper hand.
Hindustan Times
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Secretly recorded calls admissible in marital disputes: SC
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a spouse may rely on secretly recorded telephonic conversations with the other partner in matrimonial disputes, including divorce proceedings, because such communications are not barred under the law and do not amount to a breach of privacy. The bench asserted that while the right to privacy exists between spouses, it is not absolute (ANI) In a significant ruling that reshapes the contours of privacy and evidence within marriage, a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside a 2021 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana high court, which had barred a husband from using a compact disc (CD) or a memory card containing conversations with his estranged wife, recorded without her knowledge. The court relied on section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which bars disclosure of marital communications by one spouse without the other's consent. However, the same provision contains an exception when such communication is brought forth during legal proceedings between the spouses. To be sure, section 122 of the Evidence Act has been replaced by section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The bench asserted that while the right to privacy exists between spouses, it is not absolute. The exception under section 122, it said, must be read in conjunction with the constitutional right to a fair trial, which is also protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. 'We have also referred to the 2017 KS Puttaswamy judgment,' said the court, referring to the landmark ruling that affirmed privacy as a fundamental right. 'However, such rights cannot be applied horizontally in all contexts. Section 122 does not touch upon the right to privacy as envisaged under Article 21 because it is based on the right to a fair trial.' Noting that a conversation between spouses secretly recorded by one of them can be admitted in evidence, the bench emphasised that allowing such evidence in matrimonial cases upholds procedural fairness, particularly where issues such as mental cruelty or marital discord are being litigated. 'Privacy of communication exists, but it is not absolute,' the bench said, pointing out that statutory exceptions such as those in the Evidence Act reflect a balance between privacy and justice. Dealing with the issue of protected nature of conversation between spouses, the bench maintained that if spouses are snooping on each other, the marriage seems to have already broken down. 'Snooping is not the result of pending proceedings but rather a symptom of a broken-down marriage,' said the court, adding that such conversations can be validly produced and proved in legal proceedings between them. The apex court restored the earlier order of the Bathinda family court (2020), which had allowed the husband to prove the contents of the CD in support of his plea for divorce, provided its authenticity was established. The case arose from a 2017 divorce petition filed by a man against his wife, with whom he shared a daughter. In support of his case, the husband submitted a CD of telephonic conversations purportedly between him and his wife, recorded without her knowledge. The Bathinda family court had allowed him to prove the contents of the CD subject to verification of its correctness. However, in 2021, the Punjab and Haryana high court reversed this decision, calling the act of recording a 'clear-cut infringement' of the wife's privacy. It also raised concerns over the manner and context in which such conversations were recorded, calling the evidence inadmissible. The husband then approached the Supreme Court, which began examining the interplay between privacy rights and evidentiary rules. During the hearings, the court appointed advocate Vrinda Grover as amicus curiae, who argued that laws such as section 122, framed in a pre-digital era, must be reinterpreted in light of evolving technology and gender dynamics. In its final ruling, the court, however, maintained a statutory interpretation approach, stating that the exceptions under section 122 must be construed harmoniously with constitutional guarantees, especially the right to a fair trial. The bench concluded that no breach of privacy occurred in the instant case and that such evidence could be tested under appropriate legal standards. 'In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order and restore the 2020 family court order. The family court is allowed to retrieve the recorded conversations and test it under the pertinent legal provisions,' the court ordered.
New Indian Express
15-07-2025
- New Indian Express
Secret call recordings allowed in divorce cases
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that prevented a man from using secret phone call recordings or surveillance of his wife as evidence in divorce proceedings, while noting that these recordings wouldn't be considered a 'a violation of privacy.' A two-judge bench, comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, said, 'We do not think there is any breach of privacy in this case. Section 122 of the Evidence Act does not recognise any such right. On the other hand, it carves out an exception to the right to privacy between spouses and therefore, cannot be applied horizontally at all.' Earlier, the Punjab and Haryana HC Judge Justice Lisa Gill had held that recording a wife's telephonic conversations or snooping on her amounted to 'clear breach of privacy' of her fundamental right and thereby cannot be admitted as evidence before a Family Court during the matrimonial proceedings or case. Before the HC verdict, a Family Court in Bathinda had allowed a husband to rely on certain recordings of phone calls against his wife to support claims of cruelty. Later, the woman challenged this in the HC, saying that the recordings were made by her husband without her knowledge or consent and violated her fundamental right to privacy. The HC 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.
Time of India
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Private chat recorded by spouse admissible as evidence, says Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: on Monday held that a private conversation between spouses, secretly recorded by one of them, is admissible as evidence in a matrimonial dispute and would not amount to breach of . Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Enumerating Section 122 of the Evidence Act, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said it dealt with the rule of privilege protecting disclosure of all communications between husband and wife during marriage except in litigation between them. It said, "Under section 122, privileged communication between spouses is protected in the context of fostering intimate relationship. However, the exception under Section 122 has to be construed in light of right to a fair trial which is also an aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution." "When we weigh the respective rights of the parties in a trial within the parameters of Section 122 of the Evidence Act, we do not think that there is any breach of right to privacy in the instant case. In fact, Section 122 does not recognise such a right at all. On the other hand, the section carves out an exception to right to privacy between spouses, and therefore, cannot be applied horizontally at all," the bench said. In this regard, "we reiterate that as per procedure established by law, Section 122 does not touch upon the aspect of right to privacy as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution, let alone invade upon such right. The reason is because Section 122 recognises the right to a fair trial, right to produce relevant evidence and a right to prove one's case against a spouse so as to avail the relief sought for by a party," it said. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The section talks about communications during marriage and states 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; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative in interest, consents, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other. " SC made the observations on man's plea to bring privileged communication as evidence before a family court in matrimonial dispute. SC also said, "Now, in today's day and age, when the technological advancement has made it easier to record and recreate moments of past and present for reference in future, then to say that such better forms of evidence and material would not be admissible on the ground of they being in violation of the right to privacy would amount to defeating the very object of the Evidence Act. That was the reason for Parliament to amend the Evidence Act by incorporating Section 65B which specifically deals with electronic evidence."
