Using recorded telephonic conversation between wife and her mother as evidence violates right to privacy, thus not admissible as evidence: Himachal Pradesh HC

Himachal Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner (‘husband’) challenging the impugned judgment dated 17-11-2022, whereby the Trial Court rejected an application under Section 65-B¹ of the Evidence Act, 1872 (‘IEA’) read with Section 14 of the Family Court Act, 1984 (‘Family Court Act’), Bipin Chandra Negi, J., stated that a telephone conversation was an important facet of an individual’s private life. The right to hold a telephone conversation in the privacy of one’s home/office without interference could certainly be claimed as a “Right to Privacy.” Thus, the Court stated that in the present case, recorded conversation of the respondent (‘wife’) with her mother, which was sought to be placed on record, was illegal, as it amounted to infringement of her right to privacy. Since the aforesaid recording was illegal, therefore, it was not admissible in evidence.

The Court after perusal of the application filed under Section 65-B of IEA read with Section 14 of the Family Court Act revealed that by way of the present application, the husband intended to place on record an alleged conversation between the respondent-wife with her mother.

The Court stated that a telephone conversation was an important facet of an individual’s private life. The right to hold a telephone conversation in the privacy of one’s home/office without interference could 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, unless it was permitted under the procedure established by the law.

The Court referred to PUCL v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301 and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 and stated that in the present case, recorded conversation of the wife with her mother, which was sought to be placed on record, was illegal, as it amounted to infringement of her right to privacy. Since the aforesaid recording was illegal, therefore, it was not admissible in evidence. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the present petition and directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court on 05-11-2024.

[X v. Y, 2024 SCC OnLine HP 5208, decided on 17-10-2024]

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner: N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Abhishek, Advocate.