Recording Conversation Without Person’s Knowledge Or Consent Amounts To Violation Of Right To Privacy Under Article 21: Chhattisgarh HC
The Chattisgarh High Court reiterated that recording a person’s conversation without their knowledge or consent, behind their back, amounts to a violation of their right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court allowed a petition challenging the order of the Family Court whereby the Court allowed the husband’s application to cross-examine his wife on grounds of a recorded conversation under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) along with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA).
Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey observed, “Now coming to the facts of the present case in the light of aforesaid discussed judgments, it appears that the respondent has recorded the conversation of the petitioner without her knowledge behind her back which amounts to violation of her right to privacy and also the right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Right of Privacy is an essential component of right to life envisaged by Article 21 of the Constitution, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Family Court has committed an error of law in allowing the application under Section 311 of the CrPC along with the certificate issued under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act”.
Advocate Vaibhav A. Goverdhan appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate T.K Jha appeared for the Respondent.
The Petitioner had filed an Application under Section 125 of the CrPC for a grant of maintenance whereby the Respondent/Husband applied under Section 311 of the CrPC with Section 65B of the IEA to cross-examine the Petitioner for a certain conversation that was recorded on the mobile phone. The Trial Court had allowed such an application. The Petitioner approached the Court challenging the order of the Family Court.
The Court observed that the Family Court allowed the Application under Section 11 of CrPC as it was deemed a necessary piece of evidence for the just decision of the case.
However, the Court referred to the cases of M. Malkani v State of Maharashtra [AIR 1973 SC 157], People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India [(1997) 1 SCC 301] and Mr. ‘X’ v Hospital ‘Z’ [AIR 1999 SC 495]. The Court observed that the Respondent-husband had recorded the conversation of the Petitioner without her knowledge which violated her right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Therefore, the Court held that the Family Court erred in allowing the Application under Section 311 of CrPC along with Section 65B of IEA for further cross-examination.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and set aside the impugned order.
Cause Title: Aasha Lata Soni v Durgesh Soni
