"Infringement Of Her Right To Privacy": Himachal Pradesh HC Dismisses Man’s Plea To Produce Recorded Conversation Between His Wife & Her Mother As Evidence
|The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld a Trial Court order rejecting an application of a man seeking to place on record an alleged conversation between his wife & her mother as evidence. The Court opined that such recording is illegal and not admissible in evidence.
The High Court was addressing a challenge against an impugned judgment of the Trial Court rejecting an application under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 14 of the Family Court Act.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Bipin Chander Negi observed, “Recorded conversation of the respondent-wife, in the case at hand, with her mother, which is sought to be placed on record, therefore is held to be illegal, as it amounts to infringement of her right to privacy.”
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate N.S. Chandel while the respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Sanjeev Kuthiala.
By filing an application under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 14 of the Family Court Act, the petitioner intended to place on record an alleged conversation between the respondent-wife with her mother.
Highlighting that a telephone conversation is an important facet of an individual’s private life, the Bench said, “The right to holding a telephone conversation in the privacy of one’s home/office without interference can certainly be claimed as a “Right to Privacy.” Telephone tapping/illegal means of collecting evidence in the aforesaid context would therefore infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India, unless it is permitted under the procedure established by the law.”
Reliance was also placed upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2017 (10) SCC 1] wherein right to privacy has been held to be an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
“Recorded conversation of the respondent-wife, in the case at hand, with her mother, which is sought to be placed on record, therefore is held to be illegal, as it amounts to infringement of her right to privacy. Since the aforesaid recording is illegal, therefore, it is not admissible in evidence”, the Bench explained.
Thus, finding no merit in the petition, the Bench dismissed the same.
Cause Title: X vs. X [Neutral Citation: 2024:HHC:9884]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate N.S. Chandel & Advocate Vinod Kumar Gupta
Respondent: Senior Advocate Sanjeev Kuthiala and Advocate Abhishek