Latest news with #SatishChandraSharma
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- 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 To be sure, section 122 of the Evidence Act has been replaced by section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.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
2 days ago
- 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
2 days ago
- 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."
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
2 days ago
- Politics
- First Post
Man secretly records wife's phone call in marital discord case; not breach of privacy, rules Supreme Court
A bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, as a result, set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court's verdict which referred to right to privacy and held such conversations were protected under Section 122 of the Evidence Act not to be used in judicial proceedings read more The Supreme Court on Monday held 'secretly' recorded conversations of spouses to be evidence in matrimonial disputes, including divorce proceedings. A bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, as a result, set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court's verdict which referred to right to privacy and held such conversations were protected under Section 122 of the Evidence Act not to be used in judicial proceedings. The top court disagreed with the argument that allowing such evidence jeopardises domestic harmony and matrimonial relationship as it would also encourage snooping on the spouse. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'We do not 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. The said snooping cannot be said to be a consequence of the Court admitting the evidence obtained by snooping," Justice Nagarathna said. The judge underlined that snooping between partners was an 'effect' and not a 'cause of marital disharmony'. 'The privacy of communication exists between spouses, as has been recognised by Section 122, but the said right of privacy cannot be absolute and has to be read also in light of the exception provided in Section 122 of the Evidence Act…' The bench in the process restored the trial court order and said recorded conversations can be taken note of during the matrimonial proceedings. The family court was ordered to proceed with the case after taking judicial note of the recorded conversations. Section 122 deals with the communications during marriage and said 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 stemmed from a matrimonial dispute between two persons , who were married in 2009 and have a daughter born in 2011. The husband filed for divorce in 2017 citing marital discord, later amending the petition in 2018. As part of his evidence, the husband sought to submit a supplementary affidavit along with memory cards, a compact disc, and transcripts of telephonic conversations with his wife, recorded during 2010 and 2016. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The family court at Bathinda had allowed the submission of these materials in 2020. However, this order was challenged by the wife in the High Court, which set aside the family court's order, ruling that the evidence had been obtained without consent and violated the respondent's right to privacy. Setting aside the high court verdict, the top court said there was no absolute right to privacy between spouses in matrimonial cases. Writing the 66-page judgement, Justice Nagarathna said the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution is not absolute, particularly in the context of spousal communications in matrimonial litigation. The verdict held once a relationship deteriorates to the extent of divorce proceedings, concerns over privacy outweigh the right to a fair trial and the right to produce relevant evidence. Therefore, in divorce proceedings, the privilege under Section 122 does not bar the admissibility of spousal communications, the top court said. Courts must focus on enabling a fair adjudication of disputes, the order said, rather than sheltering evidence behind notions of ideal marital trust that may no longer exist. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The appellant's right to present relevant evidence in support of his divorce plea was noted to be integral to his right to a fair trial, which is also a part of Article 21 of the Constitution. 'When the marriage has reached a point of complete breakdown, and one spouse seeks legal redress, denying them the opportunity to present crucial evidence would amount to a denial of justice. The right to privacy must yield to the right to a fair trial in such contexts,' it held. The verdict referred to Section 122 of the Evidence Act which protected the communications made during marriage from being disclosed by one spouse without the consent of the other. 'The provision is neither an absolute bar on any person nor on the communication. It puts a specific and limited bar on a married person from disclosing the communication made to him/her by his/her spouse during the subsistence of a marriage between them,' the bench said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The bench said the privileged communication between the spouses under section 122 is protected in the context of fostering intimate relationship. 'However, the exception under Section 122 of the Evidence Act has to be construed in light of right to a fair trial which is also an aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 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,' it said.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Secretly recorded calls between spouses admissible in legal proceedings: SC
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a spouse may rely on secretly recorded telephonic conversations with the partner in matrimonial disputes, including divorce proceedings, as such communications are not barred under the law and do not amount to a breach of privacy. The ruling reshapes the contours of privacy and evidence within marriage. (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. Section 122 of the Evidence Act has been replaced by Section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The bench said 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 like 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 like those in the Evidence Act reflect a balance between privacy and justice. Dealing with the issue of the protected nature of conversation between spouses, the bench maintained that if spouses are snooping at 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 Supreme Court restored the earlier order of the Bathinda family court (2020), which 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 had 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 allowed him to prove the contents of the CD, subject to verification of its correctness. 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 like 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 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. The ruling is likely to have wide-ranging implications for matrimonial litigation in India, particularly as technology plays an increasing role in evidence gathering and debates around digital privacy continue to evolve.
